Miguel De La Torrehttp://baptistnews.com
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:09:52 -0500Joomla! - Open Source Content Managementen-gbWhich Jesus do you follow?http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28671-which-jesus-do-you-follow
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28671-which-jesus-do-you-followWe need an ethics of liberation which brings salvation to both the oppressed and their oppressors.

By Miguel De La Torre

As an ordained Southern Baptist minister of the Good News, I am instilled with a mission to evangelize those held in Satan’s grip, in the hope that they repent from their sins and find salvation and liberation.

However, my calling of bringing the Good News of the gospel differs somewhat from those who read the Gospels through the eyes of the dominant culture. Some of my white colleagues believe they are called to spread the Good News to so-called heathen and pagans — defined as anyone who is not a Christian and, in some cases, as other Christian groups who don’t believe in the same doctrines and in the same way as they do.

And yet, to hear the stories and histories of the colonized is to hear how much damage Christian white missionaries have done to indigenous cultures, to their self-worth as a people, and to their country as a whole. Maybe one of the worst things that ever happened to humanity was a Christian evangelism that failed to examine its complicity with white supremacy, turning the gospel message of peace into a destructive genocidal act. Whenever the gospel message of love is wed to the colonial message of conquest, what is produced is a satanic pseudo-religious offspring that establishes a white supremacy that justifies theft and genocide. For evangelical conquest to occur, others must be constructed as inferior.

While Jesus may be desirable for some, not all “Jesuses” are beneficial. We must avoid the Jesus of white supremacy that launched crusades to exterminate so-called Muslim infidels; the genocidal Jesus who decimated indigenous people who refused to bow their knees to the European white God; the capitalist Jesus who justified kidnapping, raping and enslaving Africans; and today’s neoliberal Jesus who is blinded to the pauperization of two-thirds of the world’s population so that a small minority of the planet can consider themselves blessed by God.

It is these Jesuses of white supremacy which are satanic; thus, those who follow the satanic Jesus of white supremacy can only find liberation and salvation through the rejection of this Jesus of the dominant culture. Hence my evangelical zeal to bring liberation to those blinded by the whiteness of a constructed Jesus — who, as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, remain silent in the face of oppression. Followers of the Jesus of white supremacy may be complicit in the inhumanity faced by the oppressed, but they too are in need of salvation from the loss of their own humanity.

If ethics is the construct of a particular type of culture, then those born to and/or raised within the Euro-American culture are a product of a society where white supremacy and class privilege have historically been interwoven with how Americans have been conditioned to normalize and legitimize the way they see and organize the world around them. This racist and classist underpinning contributes to the metanarrative of the dominant culture’s ethical perspectives. A world view is constructed in which complicity with the U.S. empire is deemed normal and where those who benefit from Euro-American-based ethical paradigms usually accept the present order of things, failing to consider the racialization of their discipline and/or their world view.

Few Euro-American ethicists, or ethicists of color attempting to assimilate to Euro-American definitions of academic excellence, recognize how the ethical paradigms they advocate are reinforced by a social location privileged by economic class and whiteness. As alluring as Eurocentric ethics may appear to the marginalized, most of it remains embedded within the empire and thus potentially incongruent with the gospel message of liberation read in the biblical text.

Therefore, I have to ask: why must people of color in general follow Euro-American ethical analytical paradigms when engaging in moral reasoning? To engage in the Eurocentric ethical discourse, either conservative or liberal, is damning to nonwhites, even when the normative Eurocentric ethical paradigms are said to be progressive and worthy of implementation by U.S. marginalized communities.

If it is true that ethics, like theology, is contextual, then the “decent” ethics of Euro-Americans rooted in personal piety and virtues is incongruent with the survival ethics required by the marginalized. What is needed is an indecent and vulgar ethics that reflects the indecent and vulgar conditions the marginalized are forced to endure. The disenfranchised require a disruptive and subversive ethics which de-centers the normative Eurocentric ethics designed to legitimize the dominant bourgeois lifestyle.

Eurocentric ethics fails communities of color when it refuses to consider how empire is fundamentally a Eurocentric problem — a problem that the academic discipline we call “ethics” aids and abets. The driving force responsible for maintaining a status quo that privileges one group at the expense of people of color is a Eurocentric-driven culture — a culture where the marginalized are the object, the problem, but never the subject, the solution.

In order for that culture to reconcile the empire that benefits them with their commitment to Christianity requires an abstract ethics that, while distinctly Eurocentric, can be presented as universal. As such, ethics becomes a Eurocentric construct which is part of a larger metanarrative that privileges the vision and virtues of Euro-Americans. In the same way that one cannot serve two masters — God and mammon — people of color cannot adhere to two ethical paradigms: a liberative ethics seeking justice for the oppressed and a Eurocentric ethics embedded in the empire.

Simply stated, Euro-American-based ethics will not save nonwhites, mainly because we remain invisible and voiceless in the discourse. For ethics to be liberative, it must move beyond the moral reasoning of the dominant culture. Why? Because most Euro-American-based ethics either ignores or provides justification for the prevailing structures of oppression that remain detrimental to people of color. And if ethics fails to address oppressive structures, then we must construct new ethical paradigms for our communities, ethics that are rooted within our own context.

While the ethical positions held within the dominant culture are neither uniform nor monolithic those who benefit from the power and privilege accorded by the dominant culture are nevertheless incapable of fashioning an objective ethical code of behavior because their standing within society is protected by the prevailing social structures which privileges white supremacy. Those indebted to white supremacy who seek their salvation in fear and trembling must move away from white ethics and, in solidarity with marginalized communities, participate in liberative praxis — that is, praxis rooted in the social location of the marginalized. Only by inductively engaging in liberative praxis, can liberation and salvation be hoped for.

So I invite you to join me in my evangelical crusade. We wrestle not with flesh and blood but with the powers and principalities of white supremacy. We hold a liberative ethical methodology that can bring salvation to the oppressed and their oppressors. Through our commitment to praxis, we can boldly help lead those following the satanic Jesus of white supremacy toward a liberation which is the foundation of Good News for all.

]]>We need an ethics of liberation which brings salvation to both the oppressed and their oppressors.

By Miguel De La Torre

As an ordained Southern Baptist minister of the Good News, I am instilled with a mission to evangelize those held in Satan’s grip, in the hope that they repent from their sins and find salvation and liberation.

However, my calling of bringing the Good News of the gospel differs somewhat from those who read the Gospels through the eyes of the dominant culture. Some of my white colleagues believe they are called to spread the Good News to so-called heathen and pagans — defined as anyone who is not a Christian and, in some cases, as other Christian groups who don’t believe in the same doctrines and in the same way as they do.

And yet, to hear the stories and histories of the colonized is to hear how much damage Christian white missionaries have done to indigenous cultures, to their self-worth as a people, and to their country as a whole. Maybe one of the worst things that ever happened to humanity was a Christian evangelism that failed to examine its complicity with white supremacy, turning the gospel message of peace into a destructive genocidal act. Whenever the gospel message of love is wed to the colonial message of conquest, what is produced is a satanic pseudo-religious offspring that establishes a white supremacy that justifies theft and genocide. For evangelical conquest to occur, others must be constructed as inferior.

While Jesus may be desirable for some, not all “Jesuses” are beneficial. We must avoid the Jesus of white supremacy that launched crusades to exterminate so-called Muslim infidels; the genocidal Jesus who decimated indigenous people who refused to bow their knees to the European white God; the capitalist Jesus who justified kidnapping, raping and enslaving Africans; and today’s neoliberal Jesus who is blinded to the pauperization of two-thirds of the world’s population so that a small minority of the planet can consider themselves blessed by God.

It is these Jesuses of white supremacy which are satanic; thus, those who follow the satanic Jesus of white supremacy can only find liberation and salvation through the rejection of this Jesus of the dominant culture. Hence my evangelical zeal to bring liberation to those blinded by the whiteness of a constructed Jesus — who, as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, remain silent in the face of oppression. Followers of the Jesus of white supremacy may be complicit in the inhumanity faced by the oppressed, but they too are in need of salvation from the loss of their own humanity.

If ethics is the construct of a particular type of culture, then those born to and/or raised within the Euro-American culture are a product of a society where white supremacy and class privilege have historically been interwoven with how Americans have been conditioned to normalize and legitimize the way they see and organize the world around them. This racist and classist underpinning contributes to the metanarrative of the dominant culture’s ethical perspectives. A world view is constructed in which complicity with the U.S. empire is deemed normal and where those who benefit from Euro-American-based ethical paradigms usually accept the present order of things, failing to consider the racialization of their discipline and/or their world view.

Few Euro-American ethicists, or ethicists of color attempting to assimilate to Euro-American definitions of academic excellence, recognize how the ethical paradigms they advocate are reinforced by a social location privileged by economic class and whiteness. As alluring as Eurocentric ethics may appear to the marginalized, most of it remains embedded within the empire and thus potentially incongruent with the gospel message of liberation read in the biblical text.

Therefore, I have to ask: why must people of color in general follow Euro-American ethical analytical paradigms when engaging in moral reasoning? To engage in the Eurocentric ethical discourse, either conservative or liberal, is damning to nonwhites, even when the normative Eurocentric ethical paradigms are said to be progressive and worthy of implementation by U.S. marginalized communities.

If it is true that ethics, like theology, is contextual, then the “decent” ethics of Euro-Americans rooted in personal piety and virtues is incongruent with the survival ethics required by the marginalized. What is needed is an indecent and vulgar ethics that reflects the indecent and vulgar conditions the marginalized are forced to endure. The disenfranchised require a disruptive and subversive ethics which de-centers the normative Eurocentric ethics designed to legitimize the dominant bourgeois lifestyle.

Eurocentric ethics fails communities of color when it refuses to consider how empire is fundamentally a Eurocentric problem — a problem that the academic discipline we call “ethics” aids and abets. The driving force responsible for maintaining a status quo that privileges one group at the expense of people of color is a Eurocentric-driven culture — a culture where the marginalized are the object, the problem, but never the subject, the solution.

In order for that culture to reconcile the empire that benefits them with their commitment to Christianity requires an abstract ethics that, while distinctly Eurocentric, can be presented as universal. As such, ethics becomes a Eurocentric construct which is part of a larger metanarrative that privileges the vision and virtues of Euro-Americans. In the same way that one cannot serve two masters — God and mammon — people of color cannot adhere to two ethical paradigms: a liberative ethics seeking justice for the oppressed and a Eurocentric ethics embedded in the empire.

Simply stated, Euro-American-based ethics will not save nonwhites, mainly because we remain invisible and voiceless in the discourse. For ethics to be liberative, it must move beyond the moral reasoning of the dominant culture. Why? Because most Euro-American-based ethics either ignores or provides justification for the prevailing structures of oppression that remain detrimental to people of color. And if ethics fails to address oppressive structures, then we must construct new ethical paradigms for our communities, ethics that are rooted within our own context.

While the ethical positions held within the dominant culture are neither uniform nor monolithic those who benefit from the power and privilege accorded by the dominant culture are nevertheless incapable of fashioning an objective ethical code of behavior because their standing within society is protected by the prevailing social structures which privileges white supremacy. Those indebted to white supremacy who seek their salvation in fear and trembling must move away from white ethics and, in solidarity with marginalized communities, participate in liberative praxis — that is, praxis rooted in the social location of the marginalized. Only by inductively engaging in liberative praxis, can liberation and salvation be hoped for.

So I invite you to join me in my evangelical crusade. We wrestle not with flesh and blood but with the powers and principalities of white supremacy. We hold a liberative ethical methodology that can bring salvation to the oppressed and their oppressors. Through our commitment to praxis, we can boldly help lead those following the satanic Jesus of white supremacy toward a liberation which is the foundation of Good News for all.

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesWed, 07 May 2014 15:47:31 -0400So the papyrus is genuine. What now?http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28569-so-the-papyrus-is-genuine-what-now
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28569-so-the-papyrus-is-genuine-what-nowMost Christians would find it blasphemous to imagine Jesus participating in any sexual act. But why?

By Miguel De La Torre

A faded tiny scrap of papyrus caused an uproar when first unveiled in 2012. Why? Because this ancient fragment contains the phrases: “Jesus said to them, My wife…” and “she will be able to be my disciple.”

A debate ensued, inflamed by some church scholars over whether women should be clergy. Skepticism about the papyrus’ authenticity and charges of forgery were immediately made. Nevertheless, when tested by experts in electrical engineering, chemistry and biology at Columbia University, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it was proven this month that the ink and papyrus are indeed ancient, and thus not a modern forgery.

Even though the papyrus is authentic, it does not necessarily prove that Jesus had a wife or that women disciples existed.

Still, I wonder: what would be so wrong with Jesus having a wife and engaging in marital bliss? Most Christians would find it blasphemous to imagine Jesus participating in any sexual act. But why? Contrary to popular belief, nowhere in Scripture is the concept of asceticism — the denial of sexual pleasure for the purpose of religious devotion — advocated as a lifelong practice for believers.

To the Hebrew mindset, celibacy was unnatural. The Talmud states that anyone who is not married is deficient because they live for the self. In Judaism, embracing the other through marriage is an underlying component of being human.

Unfortunately, from the middle of the third century through the start of the fourth, an ascetic movement developed among Christians, in part as a response to how the biblical text was interpreted, as in St. Paul’s writings: “I chastise my body and subjugate it, lest when preaching to others I myself should be rejected” (1 Co 9:27).

The idea of Jesus engaging in sex is highly sacrilegious because of how Christians have historically defined sex. The dualistic relationship created between the flesh and the spirit led to the development of practices that encouraged the denial of bodily pleasure in exchange for the pursuit of the spiritual. The danger of sex was that humans, specifically men, would lose themselves to the bondage of the flesh. Sexual pleasure had to be restricted by religious authorities to avoid what they ascertained to be detrimental to both the physical and spiritual welfare of the believer. The church perceived sex outside of what was constructed as an acceptable space, as something profane, wicked, evil or sinful.

Why? Because it celebrated and focused on the body, which, said the church, is dirty and temporal and thus distracted from the spiritual, which is eternal. Some early Christian sects (Gnostics, Marcionites and other Syriac traditions) had such an aversion to the material world that they made salvation contingent on the renunciation of sex. This revulsion of the human body developed over time, influenced the evolution of Christendom.

In part, the ascetic movement was the result of the Christianization of the Roman Empire (313) brought about by Constantine (274-337). Some Christians saw the faith becoming perverted with the trappings of the empire’s power and privilege. As a response, they fled to the desert to concentrate on achieving God’s perfection in this life. They renounced wealth, property, power, privilege, comfort, family and household responsibilities. And most of all, they renounced sex. Asceticism became the denial of bodily sexual pleasure and the repression of erotic desire, understood by the faithful to be a holy act of religious devotion required to enter God’s service. Or as St. Anthony (c. 250-356) said, “the fiber of the soul is then sound when the pleasures of the body are diminished.”

Pain, suffering, deprivation and self-mutilation were spiritualized, whereas love was desexualized so that desire for sex could be replaced with desire for God. Pleasure was found in self-denial so as to concentrate on things of the spirit rather than of the flesh. As a result, desire of sexual pleasure was demonized, an urge requiring suppression. Through pain, the opposite of sensual pleasure, the joy of salvation could be achieved. Suffering because of faith (as in the persecution of Christians) was replaced by suffering for faith (namely self-denial and self-repression). Pain and suffering no longer were derived from confronting injustices; rather, pain and suffering were romanticized for their own spiritual sake.

Such anti-body views are then read into the life of Jesus, dehumanizing him through Christian pious sensibilities. But if we claim that Jesus was sinless (Hebrews 4:14–15), and connect this to the claim that Jesus did not engage in sex, we might falsely conclude that sex is sin, which is why Jesus abstained.

One need only recall the controversy resulting from Martin Scorsese’s 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ, in which during a dream sequence Jesus envisions himself marrying Mary Magdalene. The concept of Jesus engaging in sex so enraged some arch-conservative Christians that they set fire to a Paris theater during a showing of the movie, resulting in the injury and death of moviegoers. To the perpetrators, burning people alive was less repulsive then a movie dream sequence that explored Jesus’ sexuality.

The life and message of Jesus is what shapes my life. Whether Jesus was married and engaged in sex or not is truly unimportant to me. If Jesus’ sexuality is important to you, I must ask, why?

]]>Most Christians would find it blasphemous to imagine Jesus participating in any sexual act. But why?

By Miguel De La Torre

A faded tiny scrap of papyrus caused an uproar when first unveiled in 2012. Why? Because this ancient fragment contains the phrases: “Jesus said to them, My wife…” and “she will be able to be my disciple.”

A debate ensued, inflamed by some church scholars over whether women should be clergy. Skepticism about the papyrus’ authenticity and charges of forgery were immediately made. Nevertheless, when tested by experts in electrical engineering, chemistry and biology at Columbia University, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it was proven this month that the ink and papyrus are indeed ancient, and thus not a modern forgery.

Even though the papyrus is authentic, it does not necessarily prove that Jesus had a wife or that women disciples existed.

Still, I wonder: what would be so wrong with Jesus having a wife and engaging in marital bliss? Most Christians would find it blasphemous to imagine Jesus participating in any sexual act. But why? Contrary to popular belief, nowhere in Scripture is the concept of asceticism — the denial of sexual pleasure for the purpose of religious devotion — advocated as a lifelong practice for believers.

To the Hebrew mindset, celibacy was unnatural. The Talmud states that anyone who is not married is deficient because they live for the self. In Judaism, embracing the other through marriage is an underlying component of being human.

Unfortunately, from the middle of the third century through the start of the fourth, an ascetic movement developed among Christians, in part as a response to how the biblical text was interpreted, as in St. Paul’s writings: “I chastise my body and subjugate it, lest when preaching to others I myself should be rejected” (1 Co 9:27).

The idea of Jesus engaging in sex is highly sacrilegious because of how Christians have historically defined sex. The dualistic relationship created between the flesh and the spirit led to the development of practices that encouraged the denial of bodily pleasure in exchange for the pursuit of the spiritual. The danger of sex was that humans, specifically men, would lose themselves to the bondage of the flesh. Sexual pleasure had to be restricted by religious authorities to avoid what they ascertained to be detrimental to both the physical and spiritual welfare of the believer. The church perceived sex outside of what was constructed as an acceptable space, as something profane, wicked, evil or sinful.

Why? Because it celebrated and focused on the body, which, said the church, is dirty and temporal and thus distracted from the spiritual, which is eternal. Some early Christian sects (Gnostics, Marcionites and other Syriac traditions) had such an aversion to the material world that they made salvation contingent on the renunciation of sex. This revulsion of the human body developed over time, influenced the evolution of Christendom.

In part, the ascetic movement was the result of the Christianization of the Roman Empire (313) brought about by Constantine (274-337). Some Christians saw the faith becoming perverted with the trappings of the empire’s power and privilege. As a response, they fled to the desert to concentrate on achieving God’s perfection in this life. They renounced wealth, property, power, privilege, comfort, family and household responsibilities. And most of all, they renounced sex. Asceticism became the denial of bodily sexual pleasure and the repression of erotic desire, understood by the faithful to be a holy act of religious devotion required to enter God’s service. Or as St. Anthony (c. 250-356) said, “the fiber of the soul is then sound when the pleasures of the body are diminished.”

Pain, suffering, deprivation and self-mutilation were spiritualized, whereas love was desexualized so that desire for sex could be replaced with desire for God. Pleasure was found in self-denial so as to concentrate on things of the spirit rather than of the flesh. As a result, desire of sexual pleasure was demonized, an urge requiring suppression. Through pain, the opposite of sensual pleasure, the joy of salvation could be achieved. Suffering because of faith (as in the persecution of Christians) was replaced by suffering for faith (namely self-denial and self-repression). Pain and suffering no longer were derived from confronting injustices; rather, pain and suffering were romanticized for their own spiritual sake.

Such anti-body views are then read into the life of Jesus, dehumanizing him through Christian pious sensibilities. But if we claim that Jesus was sinless (Hebrews 4:14–15), and connect this to the claim that Jesus did not engage in sex, we might falsely conclude that sex is sin, which is why Jesus abstained.

One need only recall the controversy resulting from Martin Scorsese’s 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ, in which during a dream sequence Jesus envisions himself marrying Mary Magdalene. The concept of Jesus engaging in sex so enraged some arch-conservative Christians that they set fire to a Paris theater during a showing of the movie, resulting in the injury and death of moviegoers. To the perpetrators, burning people alive was less repulsive then a movie dream sequence that explored Jesus’ sexuality.

The life and message of Jesus is what shapes my life. Whether Jesus was married and engaged in sex or not is truly unimportant to me. If Jesus’ sexuality is important to you, I must ask, why?

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesMon, 14 Apr 2014 14:03:22 -0400The nagging questionhttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28468-the-nagging-question
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28468-the-nagging-questionFor people of color in the United States, even the most routine events might have a subtext.

By Miguel De Le Torre

It was the early 1980s. I was a young Latino whose only earthly possession was a fiery red sports car. One spring break, I decided to go on a road trip and drive from Miami to New York City. I headed north up Interstate 95.

It was close to Elizabeth, N.J., when I was pulled over. When I asked why, I was told that I was traveling five miles above the speed limit. The officer, after politely asking permission, proceeded to search my car. When I asked what he was looking for and what probable cause led him to search my vehicle, he responded that sports cars driven by Latinos with Dade County license plates were suspected of transporting cocaine to the Northeast. After finding nothing, he simply gave me a ticket.

Before racial profiling ever made the headlines, I learned what it meant to be a suspect simply for driving while “under the influence of” being Hispanic.

Of course this was not the first time I was stopped by law enforcement. My initial encounter was when I was 14 years old, walking home at night after my shift at Burger King. A cruiser pulled up in front of me and, without asking permission, proceeded to search me. Finding nothing, he let me go, warning me that I shouldn’t be out so late.

No doubt, some might find these two encounters and subsequent other stops with the police troublesome, an abuse of power toward a young Hispanic. But if I’m honest, more problematic than being stopped and frisked, was my reaction afterward.

Both as a teenager continuing my walk home, and as a young adult continuing my drive to New York City, I had the same thought go through my mind: “Thank God the police are being vigilant in protecting society from potential criminals.” I was not angered that I was ethnically profiled; instead, I was thankful society was being kept safe. My mind was so colonized that I did not — I could not — see how my identity was being constructed. I was indoctrinated to see myself through the eyes of the dominant culture, accepting my so-called suspicious nature.

Even today, if I am honest with myself, regardless of all the work which I do in liberative ethics, I would have to admit that my mind continues to be colonized — and I would suspect, I would propose, that the minds of many scholars of color might also contain the residues of the colonization process.

I have come to discover that whenever a member of the dominant culture is pulled over by the police, the individual usually analyzes the situation in one of three ways: 1) I was speeding and got caught, 2) the police officer must be having a bad day, or 3) the police officer must not have made his or her ticket quota for the month.

But when a person of color is pulled over, there is a fourth consideration which those from the dominant culture need not consider. Was I pulled over because I’m a Hispanic? Maybe I was speeding, maybe the officer is having a bad day, maybe the officer has not yet made his/her quota. It really doesn’t matter if any of these are the actual reasons for being pulled over. I am left with the nagging suspicious feeling that maybe the real reason was because I’m Hispanic.

In everything people of color do, in every interaction in which we engage — even when good things happen — we can never fully shake off this fourth consideration. Is what’s occurring because I am Hispanic? Of course, those whose identities have been constructed to be the norm can never understand what they dismiss as being overly sensitive. But for those who continue to struggle against such false consciousness, how can they ignore a lifetime of conditioning?

If I am being overly sensitive, then it is the consequence of over half a century of colonial conditioning, of constantly trying to prove I can participate in the dominant culture’s discourse. So how then do we liberate our colonized minds? For you see, before we can speak about the liberation of our people from societal, political and economical structures of oppression, we must first liberate ourselves from our own colonized minds, from equating the apex of ethical discourse with Eurocentric subjectivity.

We begin the process of decolonizing our minds by not perpetuating the Eurocentric ethics that contributes to our own oppression, but rather by basing our ethical analysis upon our own cultural symbols and reasoning.

]]>For people of color in the United States, even the most routine events might have a subtext.

By Miguel De Le Torre

It was the early 1980s. I was a young Latino whose only earthly possession was a fiery red sports car. One spring break, I decided to go on a road trip and drive from Miami to New York City. I headed north up Interstate 95.

It was close to Elizabeth, N.J., when I was pulled over. When I asked why, I was told that I was traveling five miles above the speed limit. The officer, after politely asking permission, proceeded to search my car. When I asked what he was looking for and what probable cause led him to search my vehicle, he responded that sports cars driven by Latinos with Dade County license plates were suspected of transporting cocaine to the Northeast. After finding nothing, he simply gave me a ticket.

Before racial profiling ever made the headlines, I learned what it meant to be a suspect simply for driving while “under the influence of” being Hispanic.

Of course this was not the first time I was stopped by law enforcement. My initial encounter was when I was 14 years old, walking home at night after my shift at Burger King. A cruiser pulled up in front of me and, without asking permission, proceeded to search me. Finding nothing, he let me go, warning me that I shouldn’t be out so late.

No doubt, some might find these two encounters and subsequent other stops with the police troublesome, an abuse of power toward a young Hispanic. But if I’m honest, more problematic than being stopped and frisked, was my reaction afterward.

Both as a teenager continuing my walk home, and as a young adult continuing my drive to New York City, I had the same thought go through my mind: “Thank God the police are being vigilant in protecting society from potential criminals.” I was not angered that I was ethnically profiled; instead, I was thankful society was being kept safe. My mind was so colonized that I did not — I could not — see how my identity was being constructed. I was indoctrinated to see myself through the eyes of the dominant culture, accepting my so-called suspicious nature.

Even today, if I am honest with myself, regardless of all the work which I do in liberative ethics, I would have to admit that my mind continues to be colonized — and I would suspect, I would propose, that the minds of many scholars of color might also contain the residues of the colonization process.

I have come to discover that whenever a member of the dominant culture is pulled over by the police, the individual usually analyzes the situation in one of three ways: 1) I was speeding and got caught, 2) the police officer must be having a bad day, or 3) the police officer must not have made his or her ticket quota for the month.

But when a person of color is pulled over, there is a fourth consideration which those from the dominant culture need not consider. Was I pulled over because I’m a Hispanic? Maybe I was speeding, maybe the officer is having a bad day, maybe the officer has not yet made his/her quota. It really doesn’t matter if any of these are the actual reasons for being pulled over. I am left with the nagging suspicious feeling that maybe the real reason was because I’m Hispanic.

In everything people of color do, in every interaction in which we engage — even when good things happen — we can never fully shake off this fourth consideration. Is what’s occurring because I am Hispanic? Of course, those whose identities have been constructed to be the norm can never understand what they dismiss as being overly sensitive. But for those who continue to struggle against such false consciousness, how can they ignore a lifetime of conditioning?

If I am being overly sensitive, then it is the consequence of over half a century of colonial conditioning, of constantly trying to prove I can participate in the dominant culture’s discourse. So how then do we liberate our colonized minds? For you see, before we can speak about the liberation of our people from societal, political and economical structures of oppression, we must first liberate ourselves from our own colonized minds, from equating the apex of ethical discourse with Eurocentric subjectivity.

We begin the process of decolonizing our minds by not perpetuating the Eurocentric ethics that contributes to our own oppression, but rather by basing our ethical analysis upon our own cultural symbols and reasoning.

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesMon, 17 Mar 2014 12:56:13 -0400On the right side of historyhttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28404-on-the-right-side-of-history
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28404-on-the-right-side-of-historyA great moral struggle is raging in this land as the majority move toward dismantling the residue of centuries of oppression.

By Miguel de la Torre

Imagine for the moment that I found fundamentalist Christians to be an abomination to the gospel message of Jesus Christ; or that I believe that the Tea Party is satanic. Now imagine that I own a coffee house in Arizona and the governor did not veto SB 1062.

If SB 1062 had become law, it would have allowed me to refuse “those people” service at my establishment — literally the right to sit at the lunch counter — because their lifestyle, their philosophy, their views are a burden upon my consciousness.

As an American, I have the right to be as close-minded and biased as I want. But I do not have the right to legalize my close-mindedness and bias to the detriment of other Americans (or non-Americans for that matter). Arizona SB 1062 was state-sanctioned discrimination using religion as the excuse.

Churches and religious organizations have always had the First Amendment right (and still do) to operate according to their own beliefs, regardless of whether I believe or reject their church teachings. What the Civil Rights movement taught us is that businesses operating within the marketplace cannot discriminate against persons on the basis of the entrepreneur’s beliefs. Business owners can no longer choose who they will provide service to and who they will not.

As the coffee shop manager, I must provide service to blacks, whites, women, poor, rich, lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered regardless of any personal opinions I may hold. Yes, I even have to provide service to the fundamentalist and Tea Partiers, even if I believe their views and actions violate the liberating message of the Bible. But serving them coffee does not mean I endorse their views; it just means that discrimination is always wrong, always wrong, always wrong.

Let’s not fool ourselves, the purpose of SB 1062 was clear — to provide legal justification to individuals, corporations, institutions or business organizations to discriminate against LGBT folks using religion as an excuse. SB 1062 was a backlash in a country that is rapidly moving toward a more justice-based and inclusive society; and it is a wonderful thing to see the “hand of the Lord” moving upon this land. Still, before we celebrate Gov. Brewer vetoing SB 1062, let us not forget that similar so-called “religious-protection” legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Yes, the battle was won in Arizona, but the war against our LGBT brothers and sisters continues.

Ironically, the discrimination this law intended for the LGBT community moved beyond just them. The way that SB 1062-type laws are written mean that a heterosexual man with HIV may be denied medicine from a pharmacist if that pharmacist believes that HIV is God’s punishment upon the gay community. Or an unwed woman can be fired from a religiously affiliated school if she were to become pregnant — whether the pregnancy is or is not planned. Or pharmacies believing that we are to be “fruitful and multiply” can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.

These examples are not what might happen — they are already happening throughout our country, and SB 1062’s purpose was to make this type of discrimination legal.

Our history as Americans has been a history of discrimination and exclusion. A great moral struggle is raging in this land as the majority move toward dismantling the residue of centuries of oppression. Yet, a powerful minority grasping for power they once held continues to demand a white, heterosexual, patriarchal America and the privilege that America always provided them. But here is the Good News: Because they stand on the wrong side of history, they will find themselves standing with those who in the past fought for an exclusive America, be they those who use the law to discriminate against blacks or those who used different laws to discriminate against women.

SB 1062 will not become the law of Arizona, and other states may also reject such legislative initiatives; nonetheless, laws like these are the last gasps of a sexist, racist, classist and heterosexist mindset. I have seen the future, and it is more inclusive. But here is the Christian ethical question with which to wrestle: When your grandchildren ask you on which side of history you stood, will you say — as many who fought Civil Rights must say — on the wrong side? Or worse, will you say you remained silent because it wasn’t your fight and thus through complicity reinforced a discriminatory status quo?

]]>A great moral struggle is raging in this land as the majority move toward dismantling the residue of centuries of oppression.

By Miguel de la Torre

Imagine for the moment that I found fundamentalist Christians to be an abomination to the gospel message of Jesus Christ; or that I believe that the Tea Party is satanic. Now imagine that I own a coffee house in Arizona and the governor did not veto SB 1062.

If SB 1062 had become law, it would have allowed me to refuse “those people” service at my establishment — literally the right to sit at the lunch counter — because their lifestyle, their philosophy, their views are a burden upon my consciousness.

As an American, I have the right to be as close-minded and biased as I want. But I do not have the right to legalize my close-mindedness and bias to the detriment of other Americans (or non-Americans for that matter). Arizona SB 1062 was state-sanctioned discrimination using religion as the excuse.

Churches and religious organizations have always had the First Amendment right (and still do) to operate according to their own beliefs, regardless of whether I believe or reject their church teachings. What the Civil Rights movement taught us is that businesses operating within the marketplace cannot discriminate against persons on the basis of the entrepreneur’s beliefs. Business owners can no longer choose who they will provide service to and who they will not.

As the coffee shop manager, I must provide service to blacks, whites, women, poor, rich, lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered regardless of any personal opinions I may hold. Yes, I even have to provide service to the fundamentalist and Tea Partiers, even if I believe their views and actions violate the liberating message of the Bible. But serving them coffee does not mean I endorse their views; it just means that discrimination is always wrong, always wrong, always wrong.

Let’s not fool ourselves, the purpose of SB 1062 was clear — to provide legal justification to individuals, corporations, institutions or business organizations to discriminate against LGBT folks using religion as an excuse. SB 1062 was a backlash in a country that is rapidly moving toward a more justice-based and inclusive society; and it is a wonderful thing to see the “hand of the Lord” moving upon this land. Still, before we celebrate Gov. Brewer vetoing SB 1062, let us not forget that similar so-called “religious-protection” legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Yes, the battle was won in Arizona, but the war against our LGBT brothers and sisters continues.

Ironically, the discrimination this law intended for the LGBT community moved beyond just them. The way that SB 1062-type laws are written mean that a heterosexual man with HIV may be denied medicine from a pharmacist if that pharmacist believes that HIV is God’s punishment upon the gay community. Or an unwed woman can be fired from a religiously affiliated school if she were to become pregnant — whether the pregnancy is or is not planned. Or pharmacies believing that we are to be “fruitful and multiply” can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.

These examples are not what might happen — they are already happening throughout our country, and SB 1062’s purpose was to make this type of discrimination legal.

Our history as Americans has been a history of discrimination and exclusion. A great moral struggle is raging in this land as the majority move toward dismantling the residue of centuries of oppression. Yet, a powerful minority grasping for power they once held continues to demand a white, heterosexual, patriarchal America and the privilege that America always provided them. But here is the Good News: Because they stand on the wrong side of history, they will find themselves standing with those who in the past fought for an exclusive America, be they those who use the law to discriminate against blacks or those who used different laws to discriminate against women.

SB 1062 will not become the law of Arizona, and other states may also reject such legislative initiatives; nonetheless, laws like these are the last gasps of a sexist, racist, classist and heterosexist mindset. I have seen the future, and it is more inclusive. But here is the Christian ethical question with which to wrestle: When your grandchildren ask you on which side of history you stood, will you say — as many who fought Civil Rights must say — on the wrong side? Or worse, will you say you remained silent because it wasn’t your fight and thus through complicity reinforced a discriminatory status quo?

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesThu, 27 Feb 2014 11:38:09 -0500The ethics of Dexter Morganhttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28383-the-ethics-of-dexter-morgan
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28383-the-ethics-of-dexter-morganThe fictional serial killer justified his actions by adhering to a “code.” Some Christians may do the same thing.

By Miguel De La Torre

Dexter Morgan, the fictional character on the popular Showtime series, Dexter, is a forensic blood splatter analyst for the Miami Police homicide department. Those who watched the eight seasons (as I just binge watched) know that Dexter is a sociopath with supposedly no feelings or conscience. He refers to his murderous impulse as his “dark passenger.”

But Dexter’s adopted father, a police officer named Harry, began teaching Dexter a code in his adolescent years. The “Code of Harry” constructs an ethical paradigm that guides Dexter through a life that gives in to the “dark passenger” when the results are best for overall society. This moral code allows Dexter to murder those who are themselves unethical murderers.

Dexter’s ethics are prescriptive. The prescriptive methodology of doing ethics employs a deductive approach based on a code of morality under the assumption that the truth of the code leads to correct praxis, or actions. This methodology is normative among conservative Christians, specifically Baptists. Basically, this ethical paradigm believes in a Truth that is revealed in some text. For many Baptists, the Bible is that text. The ethical praxis one engages in is derived from the “truth” of the Bible. Other religions have other texts upon which the ethical is determined; i.e., Muslims have the Koran.

Of course, this ethical motif is not restricted to the religious. Our entire government is based on the prescriptive motif that the U.S. Constitution is the “truth” and the Supreme Court is the official interpreter. Even if you disagree with that interpretation, it becomes the law of the land until the Congress decides to amend the “truth,” the Constitution.

Dexter was an ethical and moral serial murderer because he followed the truth of Harry’s Code, taught to him before the death of his adopted father. It matters little if you agree with his code or not; for him, it made his actions ethical and gave his life purpose.

Likewise, it matters little if others agree with the Bible’s Code; it is what makes Baptists ethical and gives life meaning. No, I’m not comparing Bible followers to serial murderers. Or am I? When we look at the body count resulting from the action of Bible believers, we have to ponder if our code allowed us to also be ethical murderers. We cannot ignore the Crusades, the Inquisition, the religious wars of Europe, genocide — from independent women burned as witches, to indigenous people under the rule of the sword and cross, to homosexuals in Africa today who are being killed in an attempt to literally follow the Bible (Leviticus 20:13).

One of the problems with the prescriptive motif is what happens when the code contradicts itself. Dexter faced this dilemma when the code stated “Never get caught” and “Only kill those who deserve it (murderers).” This led Dexter to, at times, kill non-murderers to avoid being caught — for example, the episode in which he prepares the murder of Captain LaGuerta (even though someone else pulls the trigger).

Likewise, what do we do with contradictions within the Bible? How do we reconcile the call for genocide in the Book of Joshua with the call to follow the Prince of Peace that leads to a cross? And while we may claim to follow peace, in reality — as our U.S. Puritan ancestors demonstrated — we lean toward genocide. We may claim to follow St. Paul’s admonition to put the needs of others before ourselves, yet follow the capitalist mantra of putting one’s self-interest first.

An equally important question is who gets to interpret the Bible. Dexter is constantly in conversation (prayer?) with his dead father to better understand the Code. Sound familiar? But is Harry really responding to Dexter’s prayers or is Dexter simply putting into the mouth of his father what he wants to hear and do? As I always say, I believe the Bible to be true, I just don’t believe your interpretation of the Bible is always true.

Does Dexter’s Code or the Baptist’s Bible become an excuse to participate in unethical, if not immoral, acts? How many Bible-believing Southern Baptists, quoting chapter and verse, justified slavery? How do we know we are not doing the same today, justifying immorality because it benefits us?

All too often we fuse and confuse our interpretation of what we think the Bible says with what the Bible actually says. Hence, using the Bible we make women men’s private property, or we justify discrimination and persecution of gays and lesbians. How much of what we call ethical is really, like Dexter, feeding the urges of our “dark passenger.”

No evil ever dreamed-up by Satan can outdo the atrocities committed by good, decent people attempting to purge evil forces from this world through the implementation of biblical truths. Some of the most immoral, unethical, diabolical actions, enough to make the very demons of Hell cringe in shame, are committed by those following the code of the Bible in the spiritual battle against the forces of evil.

Maybe that great modern-day theologian, Woody Allen, said it best: “If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he’d never stop throwing up.”

]]>The fictional serial killer justified his actions by adhering to a “code.” Some Christians may do the same thing.

By Miguel De La Torre

Dexter Morgan, the fictional character on the popular Showtime series, Dexter, is a forensic blood splatter analyst for the Miami Police homicide department. Those who watched the eight seasons (as I just binge watched) know that Dexter is a sociopath with supposedly no feelings or conscience. He refers to his murderous impulse as his “dark passenger.”

But Dexter’s adopted father, a police officer named Harry, began teaching Dexter a code in his adolescent years. The “Code of Harry” constructs an ethical paradigm that guides Dexter through a life that gives in to the “dark passenger” when the results are best for overall society. This moral code allows Dexter to murder those who are themselves unethical murderers.

Dexter’s ethics are prescriptive. The prescriptive methodology of doing ethics employs a deductive approach based on a code of morality under the assumption that the truth of the code leads to correct praxis, or actions. This methodology is normative among conservative Christians, specifically Baptists. Basically, this ethical paradigm believes in a Truth that is revealed in some text. For many Baptists, the Bible is that text. The ethical praxis one engages in is derived from the “truth” of the Bible. Other religions have other texts upon which the ethical is determined; i.e., Muslims have the Koran.

Of course, this ethical motif is not restricted to the religious. Our entire government is based on the prescriptive motif that the U.S. Constitution is the “truth” and the Supreme Court is the official interpreter. Even if you disagree with that interpretation, it becomes the law of the land until the Congress decides to amend the “truth,” the Constitution.

Dexter was an ethical and moral serial murderer because he followed the truth of Harry’s Code, taught to him before the death of his adopted father. It matters little if you agree with his code or not; for him, it made his actions ethical and gave his life purpose.

Likewise, it matters little if others agree with the Bible’s Code; it is what makes Baptists ethical and gives life meaning. No, I’m not comparing Bible followers to serial murderers. Or am I? When we look at the body count resulting from the action of Bible believers, we have to ponder if our code allowed us to also be ethical murderers. We cannot ignore the Crusades, the Inquisition, the religious wars of Europe, genocide — from independent women burned as witches, to indigenous people under the rule of the sword and cross, to homosexuals in Africa today who are being killed in an attempt to literally follow the Bible (Leviticus 20:13).

One of the problems with the prescriptive motif is what happens when the code contradicts itself. Dexter faced this dilemma when the code stated “Never get caught” and “Only kill those who deserve it (murderers).” This led Dexter to, at times, kill non-murderers to avoid being caught — for example, the episode in which he prepares the murder of Captain LaGuerta (even though someone else pulls the trigger).

Likewise, what do we do with contradictions within the Bible? How do we reconcile the call for genocide in the Book of Joshua with the call to follow the Prince of Peace that leads to a cross? And while we may claim to follow peace, in reality — as our U.S. Puritan ancestors demonstrated — we lean toward genocide. We may claim to follow St. Paul’s admonition to put the needs of others before ourselves, yet follow the capitalist mantra of putting one’s self-interest first.

An equally important question is who gets to interpret the Bible. Dexter is constantly in conversation (prayer?) with his dead father to better understand the Code. Sound familiar? But is Harry really responding to Dexter’s prayers or is Dexter simply putting into the mouth of his father what he wants to hear and do? As I always say, I believe the Bible to be true, I just don’t believe your interpretation of the Bible is always true.

Does Dexter’s Code or the Baptist’s Bible become an excuse to participate in unethical, if not immoral, acts? How many Bible-believing Southern Baptists, quoting chapter and verse, justified slavery? How do we know we are not doing the same today, justifying immorality because it benefits us?

All too often we fuse and confuse our interpretation of what we think the Bible says with what the Bible actually says. Hence, using the Bible we make women men’s private property, or we justify discrimination and persecution of gays and lesbians. How much of what we call ethical is really, like Dexter, feeding the urges of our “dark passenger.”

No evil ever dreamed-up by Satan can outdo the atrocities committed by good, decent people attempting to purge evil forces from this world through the implementation of biblical truths. Some of the most immoral, unethical, diabolical actions, enough to make the very demons of Hell cringe in shame, are committed by those following the code of the Bible in the spiritual battle against the forces of evil.

Maybe that great modern-day theologian, Woody Allen, said it best: “If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he’d never stop throwing up.”

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesThu, 20 Feb 2014 14:49:17 -0500To get the right answers, ask the right questionshttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28338-to-get-the-right-answers-ask-the-right-questions
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28338-to-get-the-right-answers-ask-the-right-questionsThe book of Genesis is answering cosmic questions. Are they the same questions contemporary Christians are asking?

By Miguel De La Torre

On Sunday, Oct. 23, 4004 BCE, some 6,000 years ago, God created the heavens and the earth — at least according to James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, who made his calculations during the mid-17th century.

Taking the biblical text literally, Archbishop Ussher was able to determine the precise day creation took place. He also demonstrates for us how problematic it becomes when the text is read contrary to the intention of the original authors — i.e., literally. Using the biblical text to scientifically explain how our cosmos came into being does harm to the creation stories. The purpose of these texts is not to elucidate the how — the mechanics of creation — but rather, seek answers about the why — the ultimate questions facing humanity.

The author(s) of Genesis is not interested in pinpointing the exact moment of creation; rather, the author(s) is attempting to convey certain metaphysical truths concerning the faith of its readers, in the hope of answering certain cosmic questions that arise from human existence. What then is the fundamental truth that the opening verses of Genesis wish to convey to the believer?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. With this simple declaration, several cosmic questions are answered. How did we get here? Is there someone or something greater than us? Who made all that I see? How did existence begin and who began it? And more importantly for the original readers, is my God powerful and capable enough to sustain me in the midst of dislocation and disenfranchisement?

These are the questions with which the author wrestles, seeking answers to these cosmic mysteries. To ask of the text “how” the earth was created, or the “process” by which reality came into being, is to ask the text the wrong questions. Not how but who, not process but purpose; these are the concerns of the author.

The text tells us that the earth was a formless void and there was a great darkness over the watery deep. Like a mother hen brooding over her nest waiting for life to spring forth, God’s spirit hovered over the waters.

The good news is that God’s spirit still hovers over the formless void of broken lives and the great darkness in which the marginalized find themselves. In the chaos that reins — sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, and all the other “isms” — God’s spirit still hovers. In the darkness of oppression we may not be able to see, feel, detect or recognize the presence of God’s spirit; still, the good news of the opening verses of the Bible is that God accompanies us. In the darkness when we wonder if our prayers go any higher than our ceilings, we can take comfort in knowing that we are not alone. The God of Genesis is not a distant deity; it is a God who is present, brooding over us like a mother hen.

Failure to understand the purpose of the opening verses of Genesis can lead to interpretations that have nothing to do with the author’s intent. The opening words of Genesis are meant to be theological and pastoral for real people living exiled in Babylon wondering if this God of Israel is more powerful than the surrounding Babylonian gods. The message that the author of these first verses in Genesis wishes to convey is that their God is indeed the Almighty who created all that is and, as such, is the God of life.

For those of us who have experienced exile from our homeland, we understand what it means to exist in a formless void stuck in a great darkness. These two opening verses remind them, and us today, that our God is hovering over us, ready to begin a new work. The intention of the author was not to be descriptive about how the universe came into being, but rather, affirm the power of God.

Besides comforting us, these verses also challenge us. The Hebrew word used for create, bārā’, is exclusively and sparingly used to describe God’s act of creating something out of nothing. From the spirit comes the physical manifestation. Out of the deep watery chaos comes order and harmony. Because God is presented in the text as the first cause, existence has meaning. Although God’s creative activity is different from human creative activity, to create provides a model for us based on a God who created in the darkness with nothing. We, too, who may have nothing, are called to create.

The importance of creation from nothing is picked up by Christians in the opening verse of the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn. 1:1). If we read this passage in Spanish, we discover, “En el principio era el Verbo …;” literally, “In the beginning was the Verb.”

For Spanish readers, Jesus is not the Word, but the Verb. Divinity as noun presents us with a static God; but divinity as verb — an action word — is a God whose very nature is praxis, to create. Rather than reflecting on a noun, which becomes the basis of how we understand God, those reading the Bible in Spanish concentrate on God as Verb, as action — as in “doing” theology. The act of creation defines for us a God whose character can be expressed by God’s free activity of creating matter which is good. This creation becomes possible because our God is a Verb, not a noun.

Because there were no eyewitnesses to creation, the belief that it was God who brought order to the dark chaos becomes an affirmation of faith, meaning that it can only be known and attested through faith. Neither God’s existence, nor God’s creative act as the author of all that is, can ever be proven. It is ludicrous to attempt placing God under a microscope to prove God’s existence. Only through faith are we introduced to a God who is alive.

]]>The book of Genesis is answering cosmic questions. Are they the same questions contemporary Christians are asking?

By Miguel De La Torre

On Sunday, Oct. 23, 4004 BCE, some 6,000 years ago, God created the heavens and the earth — at least according to James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, who made his calculations during the mid-17th century.

Taking the biblical text literally, Archbishop Ussher was able to determine the precise day creation took place. He also demonstrates for us how problematic it becomes when the text is read contrary to the intention of the original authors — i.e., literally. Using the biblical text to scientifically explain how our cosmos came into being does harm to the creation stories. The purpose of these texts is not to elucidate the how — the mechanics of creation — but rather, seek answers about the why — the ultimate questions facing humanity.

The author(s) of Genesis is not interested in pinpointing the exact moment of creation; rather, the author(s) is attempting to convey certain metaphysical truths concerning the faith of its readers, in the hope of answering certain cosmic questions that arise from human existence. What then is the fundamental truth that the opening verses of Genesis wish to convey to the believer?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. With this simple declaration, several cosmic questions are answered. How did we get here? Is there someone or something greater than us? Who made all that I see? How did existence begin and who began it? And more importantly for the original readers, is my God powerful and capable enough to sustain me in the midst of dislocation and disenfranchisement?

These are the questions with which the author wrestles, seeking answers to these cosmic mysteries. To ask of the text “how” the earth was created, or the “process” by which reality came into being, is to ask the text the wrong questions. Not how but who, not process but purpose; these are the concerns of the author.

The text tells us that the earth was a formless void and there was a great darkness over the watery deep. Like a mother hen brooding over her nest waiting for life to spring forth, God’s spirit hovered over the waters.

The good news is that God’s spirit still hovers over the formless void of broken lives and the great darkness in which the marginalized find themselves. In the chaos that reins — sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, and all the other “isms” — God’s spirit still hovers. In the darkness of oppression we may not be able to see, feel, detect or recognize the presence of God’s spirit; still, the good news of the opening verses of the Bible is that God accompanies us. In the darkness when we wonder if our prayers go any higher than our ceilings, we can take comfort in knowing that we are not alone. The God of Genesis is not a distant deity; it is a God who is present, brooding over us like a mother hen.

Failure to understand the purpose of the opening verses of Genesis can lead to interpretations that have nothing to do with the author’s intent. The opening words of Genesis are meant to be theological and pastoral for real people living exiled in Babylon wondering if this God of Israel is more powerful than the surrounding Babylonian gods. The message that the author of these first verses in Genesis wishes to convey is that their God is indeed the Almighty who created all that is and, as such, is the God of life.

For those of us who have experienced exile from our homeland, we understand what it means to exist in a formless void stuck in a great darkness. These two opening verses remind them, and us today, that our God is hovering over us, ready to begin a new work. The intention of the author was not to be descriptive about how the universe came into being, but rather, affirm the power of God.

Besides comforting us, these verses also challenge us. The Hebrew word used for create, bārā’, is exclusively and sparingly used to describe God’s act of creating something out of nothing. From the spirit comes the physical manifestation. Out of the deep watery chaos comes order and harmony. Because God is presented in the text as the first cause, existence has meaning. Although God’s creative activity is different from human creative activity, to create provides a model for us based on a God who created in the darkness with nothing. We, too, who may have nothing, are called to create.

The importance of creation from nothing is picked up by Christians in the opening verse of the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn. 1:1). If we read this passage in Spanish, we discover, “En el principio era el Verbo …;” literally, “In the beginning was the Verb.”

For Spanish readers, Jesus is not the Word, but the Verb. Divinity as noun presents us with a static God; but divinity as verb — an action word — is a God whose very nature is praxis, to create. Rather than reflecting on a noun, which becomes the basis of how we understand God, those reading the Bible in Spanish concentrate on God as Verb, as action — as in “doing” theology. The act of creation defines for us a God whose character can be expressed by God’s free activity of creating matter which is good. This creation becomes possible because our God is a Verb, not a noun.

Because there were no eyewitnesses to creation, the belief that it was God who brought order to the dark chaos becomes an affirmation of faith, meaning that it can only be known and attested through faith. Neither God’s existence, nor God’s creative act as the author of all that is, can ever be proven. It is ludicrous to attempt placing God under a microscope to prove God’s existence. Only through faith are we introduced to a God who is alive.

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesFri, 07 Feb 2014 14:54:20 -0500The Screwtape E-mailshttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28242-the-screwtape-emails
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28242-the-screwtape-emailsIn the spirit of The Screwtape Letters, with just a bit of updating.

Dearest Wormwood, It is with great pleasure that I hear of the success you are having with your Christian patient. Just because they say they follow the Enemy does not mean they are lost to our Father below. Some of the greatest Christians throughout the ages have led crusades, genocides, conquest, and invasions, all in the name of he who will not be mentioned. Followers of our enemy should not be encouraged to turn away from the one crucified; quite the contrary, they should be prodded to be zealots for the cause — hating and condemning those they perceive to be in league with us. Nothing gives us more joy then to see those who call themselves by our Enemy’s name engaged in acts defending he who needs no defenders. The great irony is that greater evils are always performed by Christians fighting those whom they define as evil. Nothing makes the very angels of Heaven blush in shame more than the zealotry of Christians.

Intolerance is one of our secret weapons. If you can’t get them to physically attack those with whom they disagree, then entice them to participate in character assassination. Stop helping them come up with cleaver and witty rebuttals — experience shows this seldom works — instead attack their character. Call those with whom they disagree stupid, wrong, or angry. If it leads them closer to our cause, have them call their opponents satanic, after our Father’s name below. As long as they are attacking characters, they don’t have time to hear what others are saying. Our enemy’s approach has consistently been to raise consciousness, to force our followers to think deeper. We can have none of this. Cheap shots, angry accusations, and arrogant dismissals get in the way of them listening, for through listening they might repent, and through repentance, they might act. Action leads to change commitments, then they are lost to us. Have them think that belief is all that is needed; just don’t have them act on those beliefs.

I have been spending much time thinking about the question you pose. I had our administrators at the Bureau of Best Intentions consider your proposal. They agree that the best way to move them away from any commitment to our Enemy is to fuse and confuse their allegiance to the crucified with allegiance to something else. I really don’t care what. Pick your poison. Political party, nationalism, some inalienable right like their guns (which on a side note, we rejoice down here every time more blood is spilled in the name of the Second Amendment). As long as they conflate the enemy with the Republican or Democrat Party; the truth with what is said on FOX or MSNBC; the faith of Jews, Christians, or Muslim — we win. We don’t care which side they pick, as long as they remain hostile toward the other side, unwilling to love, forgive, learn, or join in fellowship. Remember the hymn you learned as a small gremlin: “They will know we belong to the Father of lies by our hate, by our hate, yes, they will know we belong to the Evil One by our hate.”

Wormwood, I am deeply disappointed with your last report. Didn’t Slubgob teach you anything at the Academy? How can you let your patient engage in actions geared to transform society to be closer to the image of the enemy? Charity — that’s fine. Let them feed the hungry. It allows them to feel good about themselves. Some field reports we have gotten state that at times the one crucified becomes enfleshed among the least of them so that what your patient does to them, your patient really does to the Enemy. Remember the simple formula — charity helps us; asking why they are hungry, then doing something about it, sets us back. I expected more from you.

Wormwood, you are losing control of the situation. Your patient going to church is not a big deal. It is the type of church that he goes to. To go to a church that teaches putting the needs of the other first, that teaches all are created in the image of the enemy and thus has worth, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or orientation is disastrous. Lead him to those churches where the sermons are focused on the individual, on the personal. Salient individualism, what was once called selfishness, is one of our strongest weapons. You are losing him. Don’t disappoint me.

Wormwood, let’s face it, you failed. On this miserable day when the birth of our enemy is celebrated, you let a promising prospect slip through your fingers. He has learned that faith without action is dead. We wanted him to stay dead but you have let him participate in actions — and with each act committed in league with our Enemy, his consciousness is raised so that the Bible which he reads starts to make sense. He is becoming less concerned with dogmas and doctrines and is instead focusing on the dispossessed, the disenfranchised, and the disinherited. Those who side with the global oppressed, side with our Enemy. Our Father below has heard about your colossal failure. The Internal Investigation Unit will be contacting you soon for an interview. It might be wise if we suspend our communications for the moment. But please, feel free in the meantime to follow me on twitter. -- S

]]>In the spirit of The Screwtape Letters, with just a bit of updating.

Dearest Wormwood, It is with great pleasure that I hear of the success you are having with your Christian patient. Just because they say they follow the Enemy does not mean they are lost to our Father below. Some of the greatest Christians throughout the ages have led crusades, genocides, conquest, and invasions, all in the name of he who will not be mentioned. Followers of our enemy should not be encouraged to turn away from the one crucified; quite the contrary, they should be prodded to be zealots for the cause — hating and condemning those they perceive to be in league with us. Nothing gives us more joy then to see those who call themselves by our Enemy’s name engaged in acts defending he who needs no defenders. The great irony is that greater evils are always performed by Christians fighting those whom they define as evil. Nothing makes the very angels of Heaven blush in shame more than the zealotry of Christians.

Intolerance is one of our secret weapons. If you can’t get them to physically attack those with whom they disagree, then entice them to participate in character assassination. Stop helping them come up with cleaver and witty rebuttals — experience shows this seldom works — instead attack their character. Call those with whom they disagree stupid, wrong, or angry. If it leads them closer to our cause, have them call their opponents satanic, after our Father’s name below. As long as they are attacking characters, they don’t have time to hear what others are saying. Our enemy’s approach has consistently been to raise consciousness, to force our followers to think deeper. We can have none of this. Cheap shots, angry accusations, and arrogant dismissals get in the way of them listening, for through listening they might repent, and through repentance, they might act. Action leads to change commitments, then they are lost to us. Have them think that belief is all that is needed; just don’t have them act on those beliefs.

I have been spending much time thinking about the question you pose. I had our administrators at the Bureau of Best Intentions consider your proposal. They agree that the best way to move them away from any commitment to our Enemy is to fuse and confuse their allegiance to the crucified with allegiance to something else. I really don’t care what. Pick your poison. Political party, nationalism, some inalienable right like their guns (which on a side note, we rejoice down here every time more blood is spilled in the name of the Second Amendment). As long as they conflate the enemy with the Republican or Democrat Party; the truth with what is said on FOX or MSNBC; the faith of Jews, Christians, or Muslim — we win. We don’t care which side they pick, as long as they remain hostile toward the other side, unwilling to love, forgive, learn, or join in fellowship. Remember the hymn you learned as a small gremlin: “They will know we belong to the Father of lies by our hate, by our hate, yes, they will know we belong to the Evil One by our hate.”

Wormwood, I am deeply disappointed with your last report. Didn’t Slubgob teach you anything at the Academy? How can you let your patient engage in actions geared to transform society to be closer to the image of the enemy? Charity — that’s fine. Let them feed the hungry. It allows them to feel good about themselves. Some field reports we have gotten state that at times the one crucified becomes enfleshed among the least of them so that what your patient does to them, your patient really does to the Enemy. Remember the simple formula — charity helps us; asking why they are hungry, then doing something about it, sets us back. I expected more from you.

Wormwood, you are losing control of the situation. Your patient going to church is not a big deal. It is the type of church that he goes to. To go to a church that teaches putting the needs of the other first, that teaches all are created in the image of the enemy and thus has worth, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or orientation is disastrous. Lead him to those churches where the sermons are focused on the individual, on the personal. Salient individualism, what was once called selfishness, is one of our strongest weapons. You are losing him. Don’t disappoint me.

Wormwood, let’s face it, you failed. On this miserable day when the birth of our enemy is celebrated, you let a promising prospect slip through your fingers. He has learned that faith without action is dead. We wanted him to stay dead but you have let him participate in actions — and with each act committed in league with our Enemy, his consciousness is raised so that the Bible which he reads starts to make sense. He is becoming less concerned with dogmas and doctrines and is instead focusing on the dispossessed, the disenfranchised, and the disinherited. Those who side with the global oppressed, side with our Enemy. Our Father below has heard about your colossal failure. The Internal Investigation Unit will be contacting you soon for an interview. It might be wise if we suspend our communications for the moment. But please, feel free in the meantime to follow me on twitter. -- S

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesThu, 16 Jan 2014 10:57:05 -0500Birth control and the Bill of Rightshttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28205-birth-control-and-the-bill-of-rights
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28205-birth-control-and-the-bill-of-rightsIf religious liberties do not include all religions, then our rhetoric becomes the height of hypocrisy.

By Miguel De La Torre

Is requiring corporations to cover birth control medication an attack on religious liberty? Or is claiming the protection of religious liberty an excuse to force one’s religious convictions on others? Should religious affiliated organizations — hospitals, schools or charities — who believe the usage of contraceptives is a sin be forced to provide them via their insurance coverage?

The opposition to contraceptives by religious organizations can be noted by the actions of numerous religious groups and private corporations, including Hobby Lobby, that have filed lawsuits in federal courts claiming that the inclusion of contraceptives in basic health care coverage violates their religious freedoms.

A study by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology discovered that besides abortion restrictions, the most frequent issues associated with religiously affiliated hospitals revolve around the lack of birth control and sterilization for women seeking it after giving birth.

This raises some interesting questions. Are these religious hospitals imposing their faith upon women’s bodies or simply being faithful to their convictions? Can a pharmacy refuse to fill contraceptive medication because the pharmacist’s personal convictions consider its usage to be a sin?

Hobby Lobby founder David Green, who pays his employees almost twice the minimum wage, forsakes profits on the Sabbath and provides comprehensive health insurance, has no objection to covering contraception. But he considers the “morning-after pill” to be an abortion-inducing procedure.

Green, who considers himself a conscientious Christian capitalist, believes that the morning-after pill is irreconcilable with the Christian principles upon which he operates his company.

But can a corporation have a soul? If the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that corporations are protected by the First Amendment’s freedom-of-speech clause, does it follow that the First Amendment’s freedom-of-religion clause also protects the corporation’s conscience? After all, the First Amendment allows churches and religious organizations to preach and speak against the usage of contraceptives, declaring it to be a sin.

Still, in a 1990 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that to make “the professed doctrines of religious beliefs superior to the law of the land [would allow] every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government [w]ould exist only in name under such circumstances.”

When the Obama administration declined to renew the contract with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to aid victims of human sex trafficking, the administration was charged with being anti-Catholic.

The contract, however, was not renewed because the bishops required their subcontractors not to use federal monies to pay for contraceptives and abortion referrals and services, thus failing to meet the needs of those who were sexually abused. (The Hyde Amendment bars the use of federal money for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the woman is endangered.)

Furthermore, according to federal district court Judge Richard Stearns, the bishops’ requirements violate the First Amendment by imposing religion-based restrictions on the use of taxpayer dollars.

I wonder what would happen if an evangelical born-again Christian were to work for a vegan like me. Do I have a right to impose upon carnivores my religious belief that killing animals is immoral?

Science has shown us that heart disease and cancer is traceable to our meat-based diet. Hence, as an employer, why should I be forced to pay higher premiums for the damage others are doing to their bodies because they don’t accept the same moral principle concerning animal welfare that I hold?

Or what if I belonged to a religious order, like the Shakers, that rejected sex and marriage? Can I object to providing health benefits to the spouses of my employees?

Or what if I’m a Muslim? Should my employees be forced to conduct themselves along Sharia law? Must all women working for me wear the hijab?

When my ability as a Christian — and specifically as a conservative Christian — to impose my religious beliefs on others is curtailed, then I believe the government has declared war on my faith. But does religious liberty only apply to my religion?

When was the last time you defended the religious liberties of a Hindu, a Jew or an atheist? How many Christians stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Muslims who wanted to practice their constitutional rights to build a mosque and worship Allah freely in their neighborhood? If religious liberties do not include all religions, then our rhetoric becomes the height of hypocrisy.

Yes, the right to practice one’s faith, or lack thereof, as one’s conscience dictates is paramount. If you believe using contraceptives is a sin, then I will defend your right not to use them. With the same vigor I will defend the rights of other to obtain contraceptives if they want or need them.

Living in a pluralistic society — rather than a theocracy — means our religious beliefs can never be imposed on the whole. Freedom can never be limited to just my tribe.

]]>If religious liberties do not include all religions, then our rhetoric becomes the height of hypocrisy.

By Miguel De La Torre

Is requiring corporations to cover birth control medication an attack on religious liberty? Or is claiming the protection of religious liberty an excuse to force one’s religious convictions on others? Should religious affiliated organizations — hospitals, schools or charities — who believe the usage of contraceptives is a sin be forced to provide them via their insurance coverage?

The opposition to contraceptives by religious organizations can be noted by the actions of numerous religious groups and private corporations, including Hobby Lobby, that have filed lawsuits in federal courts claiming that the inclusion of contraceptives in basic health care coverage violates their religious freedoms.

A study by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology discovered that besides abortion restrictions, the most frequent issues associated with religiously affiliated hospitals revolve around the lack of birth control and sterilization for women seeking it after giving birth.

This raises some interesting questions. Are these religious hospitals imposing their faith upon women’s bodies or simply being faithful to their convictions? Can a pharmacy refuse to fill contraceptive medication because the pharmacist’s personal convictions consider its usage to be a sin?

Hobby Lobby founder David Green, who pays his employees almost twice the minimum wage, forsakes profits on the Sabbath and provides comprehensive health insurance, has no objection to covering contraception. But he considers the “morning-after pill” to be an abortion-inducing procedure.

Green, who considers himself a conscientious Christian capitalist, believes that the morning-after pill is irreconcilable with the Christian principles upon which he operates his company.

But can a corporation have a soul? If the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that corporations are protected by the First Amendment’s freedom-of-speech clause, does it follow that the First Amendment’s freedom-of-religion clause also protects the corporation’s conscience? After all, the First Amendment allows churches and religious organizations to preach and speak against the usage of contraceptives, declaring it to be a sin.

Still, in a 1990 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that to make “the professed doctrines of religious beliefs superior to the law of the land [would allow] every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government [w]ould exist only in name under such circumstances.”

When the Obama administration declined to renew the contract with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to aid victims of human sex trafficking, the administration was charged with being anti-Catholic.

The contract, however, was not renewed because the bishops required their subcontractors not to use federal monies to pay for contraceptives and abortion referrals and services, thus failing to meet the needs of those who were sexually abused. (The Hyde Amendment bars the use of federal money for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the woman is endangered.)

Furthermore, according to federal district court Judge Richard Stearns, the bishops’ requirements violate the First Amendment by imposing religion-based restrictions on the use of taxpayer dollars.

I wonder what would happen if an evangelical born-again Christian were to work for a vegan like me. Do I have a right to impose upon carnivores my religious belief that killing animals is immoral?

Science has shown us that heart disease and cancer is traceable to our meat-based diet. Hence, as an employer, why should I be forced to pay higher premiums for the damage others are doing to their bodies because they don’t accept the same moral principle concerning animal welfare that I hold?

Or what if I belonged to a religious order, like the Shakers, that rejected sex and marriage? Can I object to providing health benefits to the spouses of my employees?

Or what if I’m a Muslim? Should my employees be forced to conduct themselves along Sharia law? Must all women working for me wear the hijab?

When my ability as a Christian — and specifically as a conservative Christian — to impose my religious beliefs on others is curtailed, then I believe the government has declared war on my faith. But does religious liberty only apply to my religion?

When was the last time you defended the religious liberties of a Hindu, a Jew or an atheist? How many Christians stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Muslims who wanted to practice their constitutional rights to build a mosque and worship Allah freely in their neighborhood? If religious liberties do not include all religions, then our rhetoric becomes the height of hypocrisy.

Yes, the right to practice one’s faith, or lack thereof, as one’s conscience dictates is paramount. If you believe using contraceptives is a sin, then I will defend your right not to use them. With the same vigor I will defend the rights of other to obtain contraceptives if they want or need them.

Living in a pluralistic society — rather than a theocracy — means our religious beliefs can never be imposed on the whole. Freedom can never be limited to just my tribe.

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesTue, 07 Jan 2014 11:49:09 -0500Gun violence too close to homehttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/9105-gun-violence-too-close-to-home
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/9105-gun-violence-too-close-to-homeSeventeen months after a mass shooting at a nearby movie theater, gun violence has once more erupted in a typical Colorado neighborhood.

By Miguel De La Torre

We picked our home the way most with middle-class privilege choose their neighborhoods. At the time, we had two adolescents who were on the threshold of beginning high school. We wanted a home that was close to school with strong academics and an emphasis on music.

My children went to the public high school, receiving a fine education that prepared them for college. We went to the football games to cheer for our children, who were in the award-winning marching band. We got to know the teachers, parents and children as our home was always open to their classmates.

Because we live about two blocks from the school, we constantly see the next generation of high schoolers. In fact, this past Friday, when I stopped at the Starbucks across the street from the campus for my morning caffeine fix, I commented to my wife on their attire. One girl in particular was wearing a red miniskirt that I thought was too little clothing for this particular cold day.

That afternoon, a student walked into Arapahoe High with a shotgun seeking to find and kill the debate coach — who my children say is the nicest teacher at the school. Instead he shot a classmate who, at the time of this writing, is clinging to life.

I watched in shock on CNN while children were led away with their hands in the air and patted down by police. I emotionally broke down when I saw a girl wearing a red miniskirt standing in line waiting her turn to be checked by the police.

Once again, gun violence has come too close to home. When the Aurora movie theater shooting occurred, my daughter was planning to attend the Batman premier with her friends. Now, our children’s school is violated with violence. And yet, our refusal as a society to deal with our unreasonable and illogical gun laws contributes to the innocent being slaughtered on the altars erected to the NRA god.

Yes, guns kill people. They are weapons of destruction that, depending on the killing machine chosen, can murder masses of children within seconds.

Was it only a year since the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre occurred? Many have shed crocodile tears, but the fact remains that since then there have been 26 school shootings and more than 30,000 deaths by way of gun violence.

We remain complicit with this shedding of blood because we continue to wring our hands saying “what a shame” while going on with the rest of our lives. But a society that cannot protect its children from harm is barbaric and uncivilized.

What surprised me is how little attention the Arapahoe High School shooting has received from the national media. It was buried in the New York Times the day after the shooting, and I have not seen many more stories since. Have we become so callous that the death of children, created in the image of God, is either explained away or ignored?

For those who cling to the Second Amendment, let me remind you that our Constitution also protected slavery and counted blacks as 3/5 of a person. Our Constitution is not Holy Writ. For those who claim to be Christians, it is blasphemy to refer to any political document as inerrant. The Second Amendment may have been appropriate in the days of slavery, but hopefully, as a culture and society, we have evolved since then.

Those who claim to follow the Prince of Peace while continuing to flirt with the god of war are guilty of spiritual adultery. In biblical times, the prophets railed against those who worshiped Yahweh and Moloch. Today we worship Jesus and the NRA.

Our country needs sensible gun laws. When two Colorado state legislators began to move in that direction, they were recalled through the power of the NRA, even though local and national polls show support for these initiatives. Even though the public is crying out for reform, too many politicians are scared to be visionary leaders and too many others have become the lap dogs of the gun lobby.

Where are the Christians who have devoted their lives to following the One who died so that all can have abundant life? Christians who support the NRA’s knee-jerk reaction against sensible gun laws are — I strongly believe — complicit with the killing of our children. They stand in solidarity with those who should not have guns.

Christians cannot claim to be pro-life if they support the unregulated proliferation of instruments of death. How true are the words of the Apostle who in his letter to the Romans wrote: “You, then, that teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You that forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you rob temples?”

I believe Paul would today continue his litany with, “You who proclaim the sacredness of life, do you bring death by not regulating instruments that take life?”

]]>Seventeen months after a mass shooting at a nearby movie theater, gun violence has once more erupted in a typical Colorado neighborhood.

By Miguel De La Torre

We picked our home the way most with middle-class privilege choose their neighborhoods. At the time, we had two adolescents who were on the threshold of beginning high school. We wanted a home that was close to school with strong academics and an emphasis on music.

My children went to the public high school, receiving a fine education that prepared them for college. We went to the football games to cheer for our children, who were in the award-winning marching band. We got to know the teachers, parents and children as our home was always open to their classmates.

Because we live about two blocks from the school, we constantly see the next generation of high schoolers. In fact, this past Friday, when I stopped at the Starbucks across the street from the campus for my morning caffeine fix, I commented to my wife on their attire. One girl in particular was wearing a red miniskirt that I thought was too little clothing for this particular cold day.

That afternoon, a student walked into Arapahoe High with a shotgun seeking to find and kill the debate coach — who my children say is the nicest teacher at the school. Instead he shot a classmate who, at the time of this writing, is clinging to life.

I watched in shock on CNN while children were led away with their hands in the air and patted down by police. I emotionally broke down when I saw a girl wearing a red miniskirt standing in line waiting her turn to be checked by the police.

Once again, gun violence has come too close to home. When the Aurora movie theater shooting occurred, my daughter was planning to attend the Batman premier with her friends. Now, our children’s school is violated with violence. And yet, our refusal as a society to deal with our unreasonable and illogical gun laws contributes to the innocent being slaughtered on the altars erected to the NRA god.

Yes, guns kill people. They are weapons of destruction that, depending on the killing machine chosen, can murder masses of children within seconds.

Was it only a year since the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre occurred? Many have shed crocodile tears, but the fact remains that since then there have been 26 school shootings and more than 30,000 deaths by way of gun violence.

We remain complicit with this shedding of blood because we continue to wring our hands saying “what a shame” while going on with the rest of our lives. But a society that cannot protect its children from harm is barbaric and uncivilized.

What surprised me is how little attention the Arapahoe High School shooting has received from the national media. It was buried in the New York Times the day after the shooting, and I have not seen many more stories since. Have we become so callous that the death of children, created in the image of God, is either explained away or ignored?

For those who cling to the Second Amendment, let me remind you that our Constitution also protected slavery and counted blacks as 3/5 of a person. Our Constitution is not Holy Writ. For those who claim to be Christians, it is blasphemy to refer to any political document as inerrant. The Second Amendment may have been appropriate in the days of slavery, but hopefully, as a culture and society, we have evolved since then.

Those who claim to follow the Prince of Peace while continuing to flirt with the god of war are guilty of spiritual adultery. In biblical times, the prophets railed against those who worshiped Yahweh and Moloch. Today we worship Jesus and the NRA.

Our country needs sensible gun laws. When two Colorado state legislators began to move in that direction, they were recalled through the power of the NRA, even though local and national polls show support for these initiatives. Even though the public is crying out for reform, too many politicians are scared to be visionary leaders and too many others have become the lap dogs of the gun lobby.

Where are the Christians who have devoted their lives to following the One who died so that all can have abundant life? Christians who support the NRA’s knee-jerk reaction against sensible gun laws are — I strongly believe — complicit with the killing of our children. They stand in solidarity with those who should not have guns.

Christians cannot claim to be pro-life if they support the unregulated proliferation of instruments of death. How true are the words of the Apostle who in his letter to the Romans wrote: “You, then, that teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You that forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you rob temples?”

I believe Paul would today continue his litany with, “You who proclaim the sacredness of life, do you bring death by not regulating instruments that take life?”

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesWed, 18 Dec 2013 11:09:17 -0500Broken immigration system breaking liveshttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/9078-broken-immigration-system-breaking-lives
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/9078-broken-immigration-system-breaking-livesWoe to those who continue to ignore the greatest human-rights violation occurring in this country today.

By Miguel De La Torre

We often say our immigration system is broken, but seldom do we contemplate how our immigration system is breaking lives.

Sandra Lopez is just one life to be crushed under the immigration grinding mill. She came to this country when she was less than a month old. Her mother married an American and began to create a new home in Tucson for her daughter.

Sandra flourished in school, excelling in her studies and graduating from Amphitheater High School as an honor student. Barely speaking Spanish, Sandra was a typical American teenager until she wanted to attend Pima Community College. Lacking a Social Security card meant she would be unable to achieve her dream of studying medical science. Instead, at 19, she took a menial job at a local meat market.

On Sept. 1, 2010, a friend asked her to mail a package for him. He was late to work and just needed a Good Samaritan to help him out. Sandra did this friend a favor, going to the local Fed Ex store. Paying the cost with the $100 her friend gave her, she received $14.59 in change and went on her way.

Upon leaving the shop she was stopped and arrested because in the package, unbeknownst to her, was 3.4 pounds of marijuana. Charged with a Class 3 felony (possession of marijuana for sale) she plea bargained to secure the proceeds of an offense ($14.59) and was sentenced to time already served in jail.

During her trial, the judge asked her if either of her parents were American citizens. Assuming he meant biological parents, she responded no. The judge said she had no relief and told her to sign a form (which she didn’t understand) that authorized her deportation.

That night, she, like so many vulnerable women, was deported to a dangerous border town after all the social service aid offices were closed. Sandra found herself in Mexico with about $30 in her pocket. If she had known to say that her stepfather is a U.S. citizen, she would not have been deported and her nightmare could have been avoided.

On March 9, 2011, Sandra arrived in Nogales, Sonora, with limited Spanish skills and knowing no one. Sandra was deported to a country she never visited. Immediately, some women offered her food and shelter in exchange for prostituting herself. “Mija, we will help you survive and get back across the border,” they promised.

She approached a police officer to ask directions to the local humanitarian aid station, but instead the officer attempted to take advantage of her in exchange for his protection. She wandered the streets staying close to the border, as if that infernal wall which snakes across the landscape could provide some sense of security. Still, it was the closest she could get to home. At nights she slept in empty cargo cars by the train tracks close to the wall.

One night, she decided to use her precious cash to pay for a room at a flea-bag hotel. That night she noticed through her window some mafioso pulling up to the hotel with girls younger than herself; some seemed to be preadolescent. All appeared to be drugged by the way they staggered. Through the thin walls she could hear these girls scream for help as they were being abused. She barely slept that night, fearful the men would break down the door to come for her.

The next day she left penniless to again wander the streets. A week had gone by and this frightened teenager was growing desperate. It was then that a tall strange man accosted her with a knife, grabbing her from behind. She broke loose and ran for her life. She ran toward home, as fast as she could, up the vehicle lanes of the DeConcini Port of Entry screaming for help, seeking asylum.

Instead she was charged with a felony for illegal re-entry after a deportation, violating the protocols established for asylum seekers. Since her arrest in 2011, Sandra has spent almost three years at Eloy Detention Center fighting her immigration case and, in a sense, fighting for her life.

The flower of her youth spent behind bars due to a broken immigration system, she endured constant humiliations, strip and cavity searches and being constantly taunted by guards who called her names.

The irony is that due to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, none of this needed to occur, if not for the felony of illegal re-entry. The other conviction which would also have prevented her eligibility was reduced this past October to a misdemeanor.

But she didn’t illegally re-enter the U.S. She was seeking asylum. She was released on a $6,000 bail about a month ago. Her case is pending, but there is a real possibility that she could again be deported.

I sat down with Sandra to discuss her ordeal, cognizant that my own daughter — whose father at one time was also undocumented — is the same age as Sandra. Sandra recounted the story of a fellow inmate who after a month at Eloy couldn’t take it anymore and hanged herself.

I asked Sandra what kept her going. Her face lit up as she began to tell me how three years of constant prayers provided the serenity and the presence of God to endure constant degradations.

No young person who grew up in this country, whose parents paid taxes — regardless of their faith tradition or lack thereof — should undergo what Sandra has suffered. Unfortunately, Sandra is but one story among thousands of lives being broken by our immigration policies.

But recognizing that this is a Christian news service and that Sandra is our sister in Christ, I have to ask — what is your response to your sister’s plight? She is Jesus, in the here and now, knocking at our door asking to be let in. Only those who let him/her in, as per Rev. 3:21, will get to sit on the throne of victory.

No question Sandra has paid a heavy price, but woe to those of us who continue to ignore the greatest human-rights violation that is occurring today in this country, on our southern borders.

]]>Woe to those who continue to ignore the greatest human-rights violation occurring in this country today.

By Miguel De La Torre

We often say our immigration system is broken, but seldom do we contemplate how our immigration system is breaking lives.

Sandra Lopez is just one life to be crushed under the immigration grinding mill. She came to this country when she was less than a month old. Her mother married an American and began to create a new home in Tucson for her daughter.

Sandra flourished in school, excelling in her studies and graduating from Amphitheater High School as an honor student. Barely speaking Spanish, Sandra was a typical American teenager until she wanted to attend Pima Community College. Lacking a Social Security card meant she would be unable to achieve her dream of studying medical science. Instead, at 19, she took a menial job at a local meat market.

On Sept. 1, 2010, a friend asked her to mail a package for him. He was late to work and just needed a Good Samaritan to help him out. Sandra did this friend a favor, going to the local Fed Ex store. Paying the cost with the $100 her friend gave her, she received $14.59 in change and went on her way.

Upon leaving the shop she was stopped and arrested because in the package, unbeknownst to her, was 3.4 pounds of marijuana. Charged with a Class 3 felony (possession of marijuana for sale) she plea bargained to secure the proceeds of an offense ($14.59) and was sentenced to time already served in jail.

During her trial, the judge asked her if either of her parents were American citizens. Assuming he meant biological parents, she responded no. The judge said she had no relief and told her to sign a form (which she didn’t understand) that authorized her deportation.

That night, she, like so many vulnerable women, was deported to a dangerous border town after all the social service aid offices were closed. Sandra found herself in Mexico with about $30 in her pocket. If she had known to say that her stepfather is a U.S. citizen, she would not have been deported and her nightmare could have been avoided.

On March 9, 2011, Sandra arrived in Nogales, Sonora, with limited Spanish skills and knowing no one. Sandra was deported to a country she never visited. Immediately, some women offered her food and shelter in exchange for prostituting herself. “Mija, we will help you survive and get back across the border,” they promised.

She approached a police officer to ask directions to the local humanitarian aid station, but instead the officer attempted to take advantage of her in exchange for his protection. She wandered the streets staying close to the border, as if that infernal wall which snakes across the landscape could provide some sense of security. Still, it was the closest she could get to home. At nights she slept in empty cargo cars by the train tracks close to the wall.

One night, she decided to use her precious cash to pay for a room at a flea-bag hotel. That night she noticed through her window some mafioso pulling up to the hotel with girls younger than herself; some seemed to be preadolescent. All appeared to be drugged by the way they staggered. Through the thin walls she could hear these girls scream for help as they were being abused. She barely slept that night, fearful the men would break down the door to come for her.

The next day she left penniless to again wander the streets. A week had gone by and this frightened teenager was growing desperate. It was then that a tall strange man accosted her with a knife, grabbing her from behind. She broke loose and ran for her life. She ran toward home, as fast as she could, up the vehicle lanes of the DeConcini Port of Entry screaming for help, seeking asylum.

Instead she was charged with a felony for illegal re-entry after a deportation, violating the protocols established for asylum seekers. Since her arrest in 2011, Sandra has spent almost three years at Eloy Detention Center fighting her immigration case and, in a sense, fighting for her life.

The flower of her youth spent behind bars due to a broken immigration system, she endured constant humiliations, strip and cavity searches and being constantly taunted by guards who called her names.

The irony is that due to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, none of this needed to occur, if not for the felony of illegal re-entry. The other conviction which would also have prevented her eligibility was reduced this past October to a misdemeanor.

But she didn’t illegally re-enter the U.S. She was seeking asylum. She was released on a $6,000 bail about a month ago. Her case is pending, but there is a real possibility that she could again be deported.

I sat down with Sandra to discuss her ordeal, cognizant that my own daughter — whose father at one time was also undocumented — is the same age as Sandra. Sandra recounted the story of a fellow inmate who after a month at Eloy couldn’t take it anymore and hanged herself.

I asked Sandra what kept her going. Her face lit up as she began to tell me how three years of constant prayers provided the serenity and the presence of God to endure constant degradations.

No young person who grew up in this country, whose parents paid taxes — regardless of their faith tradition or lack thereof — should undergo what Sandra has suffered. Unfortunately, Sandra is but one story among thousands of lives being broken by our immigration policies.

But recognizing that this is a Christian news service and that Sandra is our sister in Christ, I have to ask — what is your response to your sister’s plight? She is Jesus, in the here and now, knocking at our door asking to be let in. Only those who let him/her in, as per Rev. 3:21, will get to sit on the throne of victory.

No question Sandra has paid a heavy price, but woe to those of us who continue to ignore the greatest human-rights violation that is occurring today in this country, on our southern borders.

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesMon, 09 Dec 2013 13:06:54 -0500Who owns the land?http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8924-who-owns-the-land
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8924-who-owns-the-landThe idea that landowners have exclusive rights to do whatever they want with their property is a far cry from the land stewardship modeled in Scripture.

By Miguel De La Torre

Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata coined the slogan, “la tierra es de quien la trabaja” — the land belongs to those who work it.

The Bible seems to agree. The story of King Ahab, Queen Jezebel and Naboth tells how the land was misused by the rich and powerful to the detriment of the marginalized. According to First Kings 21:

[Naboth] had a vineyard in Jezreel, near the palace of Ahab the king of Samaria. And Ahab spoke to Naboth saying, “Give me your vineyard so it can be a garden of green herbs for me.” ... But Naboth said to Ahab, “Far be it from me, by Yahweh, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers to you.” ... [Ahab told Jezebel his wife these things, and she said to Ahab], “Do you now rule over Israel? ... I will give you the vineyard of Naboth.” ... [Jezebel then had Naboth stoned by bearing false witness against him], and when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, Ahab rose to go down to the vineyard ... to take possession of it.

The view that land is a commodity to be acquired by whatever means necessary to increase personal wealth at the expense of the dispossessed is frequently condemned by the prophets. They considered avarice for land to violate the very will of God.

During times of economic crisis, the biblical distribution of land rights was sometimes ignored as some purchased the “inheritance” of their weaker neighbors and in the process created an urban elite profiting from the conversion of subsistence farming to exportable cash crops.

The prophet Isaiah denounced this practice: “Woe to those touching house to house, bringing near field to field until no end of space, and you are made to dwell alone in the middle of the land” (Isaiah 5:8).

Likewise, the prophet Micah proclaimed: “Woe to those plotting wickedness ... they covet fields and seize them and houses, and carry them off. And they oppress people along with their inheritance” (Micah 2:1–2).

Another biblical example of the oppressive effects of ownership of land appears in the account of Pharaoh’s appropriation of all the land at the expense of the Egyptians’ economic welfare:

And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, because each one of the Egyptians sold their fields, because the famine was severe upon them. The land became Pharaoh’s. As for the people, he reduced them to servitude from one end of Egypt to the other (Genesis 47:20-21).

It is interesting to note that Joseph, a patriarch of the faith, is responsible for creating this oppressive economic structure by redistributing the land from the hungry to the well fed.

In short, the biblical text declares that the right to land is subordinate to the rights of the disenfranchised to earn a just living and the rights of the land itself. Human beings are given biblical rights to be stewards of the land for the purposes of providing basic needs for sustaining all life.

Two types of claims can be made on property. Capitalism advocates a fee simple ownership of the land giving exclusive right to the owner to do with it whatever he or she desires with no concern to the wants or needs of others.

Biblical texts, on the other hand, champion inclusiveness, the belief that the land should be openly available. This pattern of land usage liberates both the individual and society from the perpetual grip of capitalism and neoliberalism.

The land is held in stewardship for God so that the owner and her or his neighbors can obtain the basic necessities of life. Property serves the livelihood of all in the community, rather than becoming the form of their subjugation. Such is the paradigm established by Leviticus.

This paradigm of land ownership was also employed in the early Christian church, where all believers shared their possessions (including their real property) according to each person’s needs (Acts 2:44-45).

This biblical concept has its roots in the wilderness experience of Israel when the bread (manna) provided by God was sufficient to meet each person’s daily needs (Exodus 16:18). When accumulated in excess, it spoiled.

What then should Christians in a capitalist economic structure do with their possessions when the overall society’s understanding of land contradicts the biblical text?

]]>The idea that landowners have exclusive rights to do whatever they want with their property is a far cry from the land stewardship modeled in Scripture.

By Miguel De La Torre

Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata coined the slogan, “la tierra es de quien la trabaja” — the land belongs to those who work it.

The Bible seems to agree. The story of King Ahab, Queen Jezebel and Naboth tells how the land was misused by the rich and powerful to the detriment of the marginalized. According to First Kings 21:

[Naboth] had a vineyard in Jezreel, near the palace of Ahab the king of Samaria. And Ahab spoke to Naboth saying, “Give me your vineyard so it can be a garden of green herbs for me.” ... But Naboth said to Ahab, “Far be it from me, by Yahweh, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers to you.” ... [Ahab told Jezebel his wife these things, and she said to Ahab], “Do you now rule over Israel? ... I will give you the vineyard of Naboth.” ... [Jezebel then had Naboth stoned by bearing false witness against him], and when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, Ahab rose to go down to the vineyard ... to take possession of it.

The view that land is a commodity to be acquired by whatever means necessary to increase personal wealth at the expense of the dispossessed is frequently condemned by the prophets. They considered avarice for land to violate the very will of God.

During times of economic crisis, the biblical distribution of land rights was sometimes ignored as some purchased the “inheritance” of their weaker neighbors and in the process created an urban elite profiting from the conversion of subsistence farming to exportable cash crops.

The prophet Isaiah denounced this practice: “Woe to those touching house to house, bringing near field to field until no end of space, and you are made to dwell alone in the middle of the land” (Isaiah 5:8).

Likewise, the prophet Micah proclaimed: “Woe to those plotting wickedness ... they covet fields and seize them and houses, and carry them off. And they oppress people along with their inheritance” (Micah 2:1–2).

Another biblical example of the oppressive effects of ownership of land appears in the account of Pharaoh’s appropriation of all the land at the expense of the Egyptians’ economic welfare:

And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, because each one of the Egyptians sold their fields, because the famine was severe upon them. The land became Pharaoh’s. As for the people, he reduced them to servitude from one end of Egypt to the other (Genesis 47:20-21).

It is interesting to note that Joseph, a patriarch of the faith, is responsible for creating this oppressive economic structure by redistributing the land from the hungry to the well fed.

In short, the biblical text declares that the right to land is subordinate to the rights of the disenfranchised to earn a just living and the rights of the land itself. Human beings are given biblical rights to be stewards of the land for the purposes of providing basic needs for sustaining all life.

Two types of claims can be made on property. Capitalism advocates a fee simple ownership of the land giving exclusive right to the owner to do with it whatever he or she desires with no concern to the wants or needs of others.

Biblical texts, on the other hand, champion inclusiveness, the belief that the land should be openly available. This pattern of land usage liberates both the individual and society from the perpetual grip of capitalism and neoliberalism.

The land is held in stewardship for God so that the owner and her or his neighbors can obtain the basic necessities of life. Property serves the livelihood of all in the community, rather than becoming the form of their subjugation. Such is the paradigm established by Leviticus.

This paradigm of land ownership was also employed in the early Christian church, where all believers shared their possessions (including their real property) according to each person’s needs (Acts 2:44-45).

This biblical concept has its roots in the wilderness experience of Israel when the bread (manna) provided by God was sufficient to meet each person’s daily needs (Exodus 16:18). When accumulated in excess, it spoiled.

What then should Christians in a capitalist economic structure do with their possessions when the overall society’s understanding of land contradicts the biblical text?

Race and ethnic identity were a major component in the Tuskegee and Guatemalan medical experiments. Yet, ironically, they were conducted at the time that white Americans were prosecuting Nazi officials at the Nuremberg trials immediately following the Second World War for carrying out medical experiments on human beings.

Conclusion of the Doctors’ Trial led to the establishment of what came to be called the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics. Medical practitioners cannot participate in human experimentations without first obtaining voluntary consent from participants.

Additionally, unnecessary harm to the subject should be avoided. Accounts of U.S. medical experiments on humans are troubling in the shadow of the Nuremberg trials.

Nonetheless, it remained common to conduct medical experiments on prison inmates and the disabled. Reports exist of mental patients in Connecticut being infected with hepatitis, prisoners in Maryland having pandemic flu virus squirted up their noses, and the chronically ill at a New York hospital being injected with cancer cells.

At least 40 such cases of human medical experiments were carried out by the U.S. government within the U.S. from the 1940s through the 1960s. It was then legitimate in the minds of health professionals to experiment on those who lacked full rights within society, specifically prisoners, the mentally disabled and poor people of color.

More recently, about 1,500 6-month-olds, predominately black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles, were used as human guinea pigs in June 1990. They were given an experimental measles vaccine developed by Kaiser Permanente. The parents of these children were never informed that the vaccine, which was used before in two-thirds of world countries with devastating results, was experimental.

Another troubling example of human testing also occurred in the ’90s at the Kennedy Krieger Institute, which is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University. The prominent Baltimore medical institute knowingly exposed more than a hundred black children, as young as a year old, to lead poisoning so they could periodically test their blood to study the cumulative hazards of lead poising.

The children were endangered in homes with high levels of lead dust even while Kennedy Krieger Institute assured parents that the houses were “lead safe.” The six-year program of human testing led to permanent neurological injuries among some of the children.

Just as troubling is the fact that human medical experiments continue to occur using the world’s poor as subjects. Developing nations with lower medical standards lack the means to enforce the rules already on the books effectively.

At such places, foreign drug companies have been accused of often testing their experimental drugs on the poor and illiterate without obtaining their consent or properly explaining the risks involved.

For example, in 2009, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer agreed (without admitting any wrongdoing) to a $75 million settlement over the death of Nigerian children who participated in testing a new antibiotic called Trovan.

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ report reveals that between 40 and 65 percent of clinical studies of federally regulated medical products were conducted in foreign countries in 2008, a percentage that more than likely continues to grow. Yet, problematically, U.S. regulators were able to inspect less than 1 percent of these foreign clinical trial sites.

Is it any wonder that the world’s poor and non-whites have a healthy suspicion of Euroamerican medical professionals?

]]>“First do no harm,” a principle precept of medical ethics, hasn’t prevented medical experiments that exploit the poor.

By Miguel De La Torre

We expect that our medical professionals would, first, do no harm.

Race and ethnic identity were a major component in the Tuskegee and Guatemalan medical experiments. Yet, ironically, they were conducted at the time that white Americans were prosecuting Nazi officials at the Nuremberg trials immediately following the Second World War for carrying out medical experiments on human beings.

Conclusion of the Doctors’ Trial led to the establishment of what came to be called the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics. Medical practitioners cannot participate in human experimentations without first obtaining voluntary consent from participants.

Additionally, unnecessary harm to the subject should be avoided. Accounts of U.S. medical experiments on humans are troubling in the shadow of the Nuremberg trials.

Nonetheless, it remained common to conduct medical experiments on prison inmates and the disabled. Reports exist of mental patients in Connecticut being infected with hepatitis, prisoners in Maryland having pandemic flu virus squirted up their noses, and the chronically ill at a New York hospital being injected with cancer cells.

At least 40 such cases of human medical experiments were carried out by the U.S. government within the U.S. from the 1940s through the 1960s. It was then legitimate in the minds of health professionals to experiment on those who lacked full rights within society, specifically prisoners, the mentally disabled and poor people of color.

More recently, about 1,500 6-month-olds, predominately black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles, were used as human guinea pigs in June 1990. They were given an experimental measles vaccine developed by Kaiser Permanente. The parents of these children were never informed that the vaccine, which was used before in two-thirds of world countries with devastating results, was experimental.

Another troubling example of human testing also occurred in the ’90s at the Kennedy Krieger Institute, which is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University. The prominent Baltimore medical institute knowingly exposed more than a hundred black children, as young as a year old, to lead poisoning so they could periodically test their blood to study the cumulative hazards of lead poising.

The children were endangered in homes with high levels of lead dust even while Kennedy Krieger Institute assured parents that the houses were “lead safe.” The six-year program of human testing led to permanent neurological injuries among some of the children.

Just as troubling is the fact that human medical experiments continue to occur using the world’s poor as subjects. Developing nations with lower medical standards lack the means to enforce the rules already on the books effectively.

At such places, foreign drug companies have been accused of often testing their experimental drugs on the poor and illiterate without obtaining their consent or properly explaining the risks involved.

For example, in 2009, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer agreed (without admitting any wrongdoing) to a $75 million settlement over the death of Nigerian children who participated in testing a new antibiotic called Trovan.

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ report reveals that between 40 and 65 percent of clinical studies of federally regulated medical products were conducted in foreign countries in 2008, a percentage that more than likely continues to grow. Yet, problematically, U.S. regulators were able to inspect less than 1 percent of these foreign clinical trial sites.

Is it any wonder that the world’s poor and non-whites have a healthy suspicion of Euroamerican medical professionals?

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesWed, 25 Sep 2013 14:50:30 -0400Suffer little childrenhttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8797-suffer-little-children
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8797-suffer-little-childrenThe number of poor children is on the rise, but “family values” politicians continue to advocate policies that benefit the “1 percent.”

By Miguel De La Torre

Wouldn’t you do anything for your children? Your grandchildren? Is not their wellbeing important to you? To our culture? To our society? And yet, political policies advocated by some within the Christian community are damning to these precious souls.

We have created a political social order that, like in the times of Molech (1 Kings 11:7), sacrifices our children on an altar of family values so that the wealthy few can enjoy an abundant life.

Christians consistently trump family values as an excuse for voting for certain politicians. Along with libertarians, Tea Party advocates and those who politically represent them, these Christians consistently oppose safety-net programs like Social Security, welfare, Medicare and more recently the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — also known as Obamacare.

They claim such government programs interfere with the private market, even though the dismantling of other safety-net programs has proven to have devastating effects on the family, and especially children.

Research shows that a rising number of children, especially black children in metropolitan areas, live in no-parent households. The lack of adequate childcare has forced many single parents to leave their children with relatives, friends or foster families.

Since the Welfare Act of 1996 was enacted, the number of black children living without parents doubled from 7.5 percent to 15 percent. Their parents may be working in retail and service industries that pay a fraction of what they used to earn at manufacturing jobs.

While these parents put in long hours to earn a wage below the poverty line, their children are growing up without a parent present. Welfare experts predict these children will perform significantly worse in school than children in single-parent homes. They will experience higher rates of school failure, mental-health problems and delinquency, thus contributing to the downward spiral of despair.

From 2000 to 2010, the number of children living in poverty increased by 41 percent. Of all the industrial countries throughout the world, we — the richest nation humanity has ever known — is among the few that has a higher percentage of its children living in poverty.

Among the 34 nation members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States’ poverty rate in 2008 was 21.6 percent, significantly above the 12.6 percent average. Only Chile (22.4 percent), Israel (26.6 percent), Mexico (25.8 percent) and Turkey (23.5 percent) fared worse.

The American dream that children will enjoy a better standard of living than their parents no longer exists. Today’s children will be financially worse off than their parents, but providing greater tax cuts for the richest 1 percent continues to be the main focus of so-called “family values” politicians.

By 2010, the poverty rate of U.S. children rose to 22 percent, representing 16.4 million Americans. Children represent only 24.4 percent of the U.S. population, but they disproportionately represent 35.5 percent of those living in poverty. One out of every four children under the age of 6 now lives below the poverty line.

I am arriving at the conclusion that those who are supposedly voting for family values are in reality devotees of Molech. Suffer little children, indeed.

]]>The number of poor children is on the rise, but “family values” politicians continue to advocate policies that benefit the “1 percent.”

By Miguel De La Torre

Wouldn’t you do anything for your children? Your grandchildren? Is not their wellbeing important to you? To our culture? To our society? And yet, political policies advocated by some within the Christian community are damning to these precious souls.

We have created a political social order that, like in the times of Molech (1 Kings 11:7), sacrifices our children on an altar of family values so that the wealthy few can enjoy an abundant life.

Christians consistently trump family values as an excuse for voting for certain politicians. Along with libertarians, Tea Party advocates and those who politically represent them, these Christians consistently oppose safety-net programs like Social Security, welfare, Medicare and more recently the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — also known as Obamacare.

They claim such government programs interfere with the private market, even though the dismantling of other safety-net programs has proven to have devastating effects on the family, and especially children.

Research shows that a rising number of children, especially black children in metropolitan areas, live in no-parent households. The lack of adequate childcare has forced many single parents to leave their children with relatives, friends or foster families.

Since the Welfare Act of 1996 was enacted, the number of black children living without parents doubled from 7.5 percent to 15 percent. Their parents may be working in retail and service industries that pay a fraction of what they used to earn at manufacturing jobs.

While these parents put in long hours to earn a wage below the poverty line, their children are growing up without a parent present. Welfare experts predict these children will perform significantly worse in school than children in single-parent homes. They will experience higher rates of school failure, mental-health problems and delinquency, thus contributing to the downward spiral of despair.

From 2000 to 2010, the number of children living in poverty increased by 41 percent. Of all the industrial countries throughout the world, we — the richest nation humanity has ever known — is among the few that has a higher percentage of its children living in poverty.

Among the 34 nation members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States’ poverty rate in 2008 was 21.6 percent, significantly above the 12.6 percent average. Only Chile (22.4 percent), Israel (26.6 percent), Mexico (25.8 percent) and Turkey (23.5 percent) fared worse.

The American dream that children will enjoy a better standard of living than their parents no longer exists. Today’s children will be financially worse off than their parents, but providing greater tax cuts for the richest 1 percent continues to be the main focus of so-called “family values” politicians.

By 2010, the poverty rate of U.S. children rose to 22 percent, representing 16.4 million Americans. Children represent only 24.4 percent of the U.S. population, but they disproportionately represent 35.5 percent of those living in poverty. One out of every four children under the age of 6 now lives below the poverty line.

I am arriving at the conclusion that those who are supposedly voting for family values are in reality devotees of Molech. Suffer little children, indeed.

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesMon, 26 Aug 2013 13:33:23 -0400Environmental racism afflicts US minoritieshttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8756-environmental-racism-afflicts-us-minorities
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8756-environmental-racism-afflicts-us-minoritiesPersons of color much more likely to live in areas afflicted by pollution and other health hazards.

By Miguel De La Torre

We are called by God to be good stewards of the earth. Unfortunately, racism gets in the way. Environmental racism, defined as the link between the degradation of the environment and the racial composition of the areas where degradation takes place, is prevalent among communities of color within the U.S. borders. According to a 2011 study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a correlation exists between ethnicity and the counties with the most unhealthy air quality.

Race, according to a growing body of empirical evidence, continues to be the most significant variable in determining the location of commercial, industrial and military hazardous-waste sites. Race is the most significant predictor in forecasting where the nation’s commercial hazardous waste facilities are located.

Using 2000 U.S. Census data, people of color represent 56 percent of the population which lives less than 1.8 miles from one of the 413 commercial waste facilities. This means that of the 9 million Americans living in neighborhoods hosting one of these commercial hazardous waste facilities, more than 5.1 million are persons of color – 2.5 million Hispanics, 1.8 million African Americans, 616,000 Asians and 62,000 Native Americans. The poorer the community, the greater the risk of environmental abuse, because those economically privileged are able move away from such sites, a privilege not available to the poor – who are mostly people of color.

Forty of the 44 states with hazardous waste facilities have disproportionately high percentages of people of color living in the host neighborhoods. Out of the 149 metropolitan areas with hazardous waste sites, 105 are host neighborhoods predominately comprised of people of color. Out the 44 states, African-American neighborhoods within 38 states, Hispanic neighborhoods within 35 states, and Asian neighborhoods within 27 states are more likely to host a hazardous waste facility.

Between 1999 and 2009, the National Academy of Science produced five environmental justice reports showing that “low-income and people of color communities are exposed to higher levels of pollution than the rest of the nation, and that these same populations experience certain diseases in greater number than more affluent white communities.” Black ethicist Emilie Townes has said that the effects of toxic waste on the lives of people of color who are relegated to live on ecologically hazardous lands are akin to a contemporary version of lynching a whole people.

Environmental racism is not limited to hazardous waste sites. Violators of pollution laws received less stringent punishments when violations occurred in non-white neighborhoods than when they occurred in white neighborhoods. Fines were often 500 percent higher in white communities than in marginalized communities. When violations occurred in minority communities, the government was slower to act, taking as much as 20 percent more time, than when violations occurred in white communities. And even when a lawsuit was brought before the Eastern District Federal Court of Virginia about the placement of landfills in predominantly black King and Queen counties (RISE v. Kay), the U.S. judge acknowledged the historical trend of disproportionately placing landfills in African-American areas but still ruled that the case failed to prove discrimination.

Environmental racism also takes a heavy toll among children of color. For example, in a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study released in 2011, of the 7.8 percent of the population suffering from asthma, a disproportionate are of color. Asthma prevalence among poor children was highest among Puerto Ricans (23.3 percent), multiracials (21.1 percent) and African Americans (15.8 percent). Among whites the rate is 10.1 percent. It is no coincidence that the predominantly black neighborhood of central Harlem in New York City has the highest percentage of documented cases of asthma in the United States.

In 2008, African Americans had a 35 percent higher rate of asthma than whites. The worst triggers of asthma are found in abundance in central Harlem (and the South Bronx), specifically insect (cockroach) droppings, mold, mildew, diesel exhaust and cigarette smoke. African-American children living outside of Harlem are still vulnerable to asthma because 68 percent of blacks live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant.

Nationwide, African-American children have a 500 percent higher death rate from asthma when compared to white children. Additionally, they have a 260 percent higher emergency rate, and a 250 percent higher hospitalization rate.

And yet, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (R-AL), during a Senate hearing on the EPA budget, claimed that air pollution victims are “unidentified and imaginary.”

]]>Persons of color much more likely to live in areas afflicted by pollution and other health hazards.

By Miguel De La Torre

We are called by God to be good stewards of the earth. Unfortunately, racism gets in the way. Environmental racism, defined as the link between the degradation of the environment and the racial composition of the areas where degradation takes place, is prevalent among communities of color within the U.S. borders. According to a 2011 study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a correlation exists between ethnicity and the counties with the most unhealthy air quality.

Race, according to a growing body of empirical evidence, continues to be the most significant variable in determining the location of commercial, industrial and military hazardous-waste sites. Race is the most significant predictor in forecasting where the nation’s commercial hazardous waste facilities are located.

Using 2000 U.S. Census data, people of color represent 56 percent of the population which lives less than 1.8 miles from one of the 413 commercial waste facilities. This means that of the 9 million Americans living in neighborhoods hosting one of these commercial hazardous waste facilities, more than 5.1 million are persons of color – 2.5 million Hispanics, 1.8 million African Americans, 616,000 Asians and 62,000 Native Americans. The poorer the community, the greater the risk of environmental abuse, because those economically privileged are able move away from such sites, a privilege not available to the poor – who are mostly people of color.

Forty of the 44 states with hazardous waste facilities have disproportionately high percentages of people of color living in the host neighborhoods. Out of the 149 metropolitan areas with hazardous waste sites, 105 are host neighborhoods predominately comprised of people of color. Out the 44 states, African-American neighborhoods within 38 states, Hispanic neighborhoods within 35 states, and Asian neighborhoods within 27 states are more likely to host a hazardous waste facility.

Between 1999 and 2009, the National Academy of Science produced five environmental justice reports showing that “low-income and people of color communities are exposed to higher levels of pollution than the rest of the nation, and that these same populations experience certain diseases in greater number than more affluent white communities.” Black ethicist Emilie Townes has said that the effects of toxic waste on the lives of people of color who are relegated to live on ecologically hazardous lands are akin to a contemporary version of lynching a whole people.

Environmental racism is not limited to hazardous waste sites. Violators of pollution laws received less stringent punishments when violations occurred in non-white neighborhoods than when they occurred in white neighborhoods. Fines were often 500 percent higher in white communities than in marginalized communities. When violations occurred in minority communities, the government was slower to act, taking as much as 20 percent more time, than when violations occurred in white communities. And even when a lawsuit was brought before the Eastern District Federal Court of Virginia about the placement of landfills in predominantly black King and Queen counties (RISE v. Kay), the U.S. judge acknowledged the historical trend of disproportionately placing landfills in African-American areas but still ruled that the case failed to prove discrimination.

Environmental racism also takes a heavy toll among children of color. For example, in a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study released in 2011, of the 7.8 percent of the population suffering from asthma, a disproportionate are of color. Asthma prevalence among poor children was highest among Puerto Ricans (23.3 percent), multiracials (21.1 percent) and African Americans (15.8 percent). Among whites the rate is 10.1 percent. It is no coincidence that the predominantly black neighborhood of central Harlem in New York City has the highest percentage of documented cases of asthma in the United States.

In 2008, African Americans had a 35 percent higher rate of asthma than whites. The worst triggers of asthma are found in abundance in central Harlem (and the South Bronx), specifically insect (cockroach) droppings, mold, mildew, diesel exhaust and cigarette smoke. African-American children living outside of Harlem are still vulnerable to asthma because 68 percent of blacks live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant.

Nationwide, African-American children have a 500 percent higher death rate from asthma when compared to white children. Additionally, they have a 260 percent higher emergency rate, and a 250 percent higher hospitalization rate.

And yet, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (R-AL), during a Senate hearing on the EPA budget, claimed that air pollution victims are “unidentified and imaginary.”

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesTue, 13 Aug 2013 13:32:34 -0400Doing the gospelhttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8721-doing-the-gospel
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8721-doing-the-gospelJustice begins with the plight of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the outcast and the disenfranchised.

By Miguel De La Torre

To engage in justice is to do it with, and from, the perspective of those whom society considers nobodies. While many within the Eurocentric context question the existence of God, those on the margins are more likely to wrestle with the character of this God who is supposed to exist.

Whoever God is, God imparts and sustains life while opposing death. Wherever lives are threatened with poverty and oppression, God is present, offended by the dehumanizing conditions in which the marginalized are relegated to exist.

This is a God who acts in history -- a God who hears the cries of the enslaved Hebrews, physically enters history and leads God’s people toward a Promised Land. It is in the everyday -- during trials and tribulations as well as joys and celebrations -- where one encounters the Divine.

While God is present in history, constructing a new society remains a human project. God may lead God’s people to a Promised Land, but the people must commit to walking there.

God takes sides over and against the rich and powerful, not because the marginalized are better Christians or somewhat holier, but because they are the oppressed in need of justice. God makes a preferential option for the poor and oppressed, over and against the pharaohs of this world.

This is the God whom the Hebrews called Go’el, the One who provides justice for the weak, makes a home for the alien, becomes a parent to the orphans and comforts the widows. The type of worship that best honors this God, where God finds pleasure, is in the doing of justice (Isaiah 1:10-17).

Jesus, as God made flesh, chose poverty -- denying some heavenly abode to dwell among the least of these. The miracle of the Incarnation is not that God became human, but rather that God became poor.

Through Jesus, God learns what it means to suffer under unjust religious and political structures. The cross is meaningless except for fidelity to Christ’s mission. For many liberationists, the crucifixion has less to do with an act of atonement than an act of solidarity.

Jesus’ condemnation to death is the ultimate consequence faced by many who struggle against unjust oppressive structures. He takes up his cross as the definitive act of solidarity with all who are called the crucified people, those who continue to be crucified today.

All too often, Christ’s crucifixion is spiritualized; ignoring that this moment in history was both a political and religious act. Crucifixion recognizes that death-dealing actions are the usual response from the authorities who protect the power and privilege of the few.

Jesus -- in the ultimate act of solidarity with all who continue to be crucified today on the crosses of sexism, racism, ethnic discrimination, classism and heterosexism -- carries the wounds upon his feet, hands and side. Thus God knows dispossession, discrimination, destitution, disinheritance and disenfranchisement.

Those who suffer under oppression have a God who personally understands their suffering due to the Incarnation. Because Jesus suffered oppression on the cross, a divine commitment to stand against injustices exists, a stance believers are called to emulate.

In short, to know God is to do justice. To stand by while oppression occurs is to profess non-belief, regardless of any confession given privately or publicly or any aisle walked to give one’s heart to Jesus.

To be a Christian is to become a new creature in Christ. This transformation includes liberation for both those exploited and their exploiters.

To seek liberation is the hopeless strive toward a new society, the establishment of God’s reign on earth.

If a tree is known by its fruit, then social justice becomes the fruit by which Christianity is recognized. If there is no justice-based praxis, there is no fruit; thus the fruitless tree needs to be cut down and thrown into the fire.

Faith becomes the manifestation of what is done to “the least of these” -- the hungry, the thirsty and the naked. As the Book of James reminds us, “Faith without works is dead.”

Only through praxis do we get to see the face of God. This is a religious perspective that does the gospel rather than simply meditating upon it.

]]>Justice begins with the plight of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the outcast and the disenfranchised.

By Miguel De La Torre

To engage in justice is to do it with, and from, the perspective of those whom society considers nobodies. While many within the Eurocentric context question the existence of God, those on the margins are more likely to wrestle with the character of this God who is supposed to exist.

Whoever God is, God imparts and sustains life while opposing death. Wherever lives are threatened with poverty and oppression, God is present, offended by the dehumanizing conditions in which the marginalized are relegated to exist.

This is a God who acts in history -- a God who hears the cries of the enslaved Hebrews, physically enters history and leads God’s people toward a Promised Land. It is in the everyday -- during trials and tribulations as well as joys and celebrations -- where one encounters the Divine.

While God is present in history, constructing a new society remains a human project. God may lead God’s people to a Promised Land, but the people must commit to walking there.

God takes sides over and against the rich and powerful, not because the marginalized are better Christians or somewhat holier, but because they are the oppressed in need of justice. God makes a preferential option for the poor and oppressed, over and against the pharaohs of this world.

This is the God whom the Hebrews called Go’el, the One who provides justice for the weak, makes a home for the alien, becomes a parent to the orphans and comforts the widows. The type of worship that best honors this God, where God finds pleasure, is in the doing of justice (Isaiah 1:10-17).

Jesus, as God made flesh, chose poverty -- denying some heavenly abode to dwell among the least of these. The miracle of the Incarnation is not that God became human, but rather that God became poor.

Through Jesus, God learns what it means to suffer under unjust religious and political structures. The cross is meaningless except for fidelity to Christ’s mission. For many liberationists, the crucifixion has less to do with an act of atonement than an act of solidarity.

Jesus’ condemnation to death is the ultimate consequence faced by many who struggle against unjust oppressive structures. He takes up his cross as the definitive act of solidarity with all who are called the crucified people, those who continue to be crucified today.

All too often, Christ’s crucifixion is spiritualized; ignoring that this moment in history was both a political and religious act. Crucifixion recognizes that death-dealing actions are the usual response from the authorities who protect the power and privilege of the few.

Jesus -- in the ultimate act of solidarity with all who continue to be crucified today on the crosses of sexism, racism, ethnic discrimination, classism and heterosexism -- carries the wounds upon his feet, hands and side. Thus God knows dispossession, discrimination, destitution, disinheritance and disenfranchisement.

Those who suffer under oppression have a God who personally understands their suffering due to the Incarnation. Because Jesus suffered oppression on the cross, a divine commitment to stand against injustices exists, a stance believers are called to emulate.

In short, to know God is to do justice. To stand by while oppression occurs is to profess non-belief, regardless of any confession given privately or publicly or any aisle walked to give one’s heart to Jesus.

To be a Christian is to become a new creature in Christ. This transformation includes liberation for both those exploited and their exploiters.

To seek liberation is the hopeless strive toward a new society, the establishment of God’s reign on earth.

If a tree is known by its fruit, then social justice becomes the fruit by which Christianity is recognized. If there is no justice-based praxis, there is no fruit; thus the fruitless tree needs to be cut down and thrown into the fire.

Faith becomes the manifestation of what is done to “the least of these” -- the hungry, the thirsty and the naked. As the Book of James reminds us, “Faith without works is dead.”

Only through praxis do we get to see the face of God. This is a religious perspective that does the gospel rather than simply meditating upon it.

I have worked, written and lectured on immigration reform throughout the country for the past several years, but I can no longer, in good conscience, support this bill. The Senate bill is so deeply flawed that its passage will do more harm and bring more death to the undocumented.

My initial excitement of a bill dealing with the human-rights violations occurring on our nation’s southern border turned to disappointment and despair as the legislative process evolved.

We can expect that adverse consequences of this bill will only worsen when the House takes up the measure. House leadership has already said they plan to focus on a much narrower legislation that does not include a path toward citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants presently in the United States.

My friends at No More Deaths also oppose S 744. No More Deaths is an organization that takes the words of Jesus literally and walks the trails migrants take to provide food to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked and comfort to the stranger among us.

They see firsthand the consequences of our policies on the border and serve as the nation’s conscience in their proclamation that we as a people are violating the will of God to be the Good Samaritan to those whose bodies litter the migrant trails.

No More Deaths recently listed the reasons why they stand against the Senate bill, reasons which resonate with my own opposition.

First, the bill’s “pathway to citizenship” is troublesome. The obstacles the undocumented must navigate -- expanded criminal grounds for removal and requirements that immigrants earn at least 125 percent of the federal poverty level, not be unemployed for two consecutive months, provide proof of payment on all back taxes, pay exorbitant fees and learn English -- means that more than half of the 11 million undocumented immigrants will never qualify.

Second, the last-minute inclusion of the “border surge” to the bill means more deaths. Since 1994, when Operation Gatekeeper went into effect, more than 6,000 individuals made in the image of God died attempting to migrate to the U.S.

Considering the bill excludes the almost 2 million individuals deported during the Obama administration -- many with homes, families and lives lived in the U.S. -- we can expect many will attempt another crossing to reclaim lost lives regardless of the consequences. The “border surge” provision will guarantee that those crossing in the future will face extreme hardship, leading to thousands more unnecessary deaths.

Third, the border-enforcement provisions are an unnecessary waste of taxpayers’ funds. The Senate bill nearly doubles the size of the U.S. Border Patrol to 38,000 agents at a cost of $30 billion -- not including the $18 billion already spent on border and immigration enforcement annually. Even former Border Patrol officials and current union representatives argue that these provisions are unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Fourth, the bill undermines the civil liberties of Americans. The militarization of the border and over 100 interior Border Patrol checkpoints 25 to 75 miles away from the international border creates a consistent need for Americans to prove their citizenship when many go to work, shop or school.

The bill provides $3.6 billion to expand the use of unarmed Predator B drones, high-resolution camera towers (which have yet to work due to high winds) and other surveillance technologies targeting American communities and eroding everyone’s civil liberties.

I have worked, written and lectured on immigration reform throughout the country for the past several years, but I can no longer, in good conscience, support this bill. The Senate bill is so deeply flawed that its passage will do more harm and bring more death to the undocumented.

My initial excitement of a bill dealing with the human-rights violations occurring on our nation’s southern border turned to disappointment and despair as the legislative process evolved.

We can expect that adverse consequences of this bill will only worsen when the House takes up the measure. House leadership has already said they plan to focus on a much narrower legislation that does not include a path toward citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants presently in the United States.

My friends at No More Deaths also oppose S 744. No More Deaths is an organization that takes the words of Jesus literally and walks the trails migrants take to provide food to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked and comfort to the stranger among us.

They see firsthand the consequences of our policies on the border and serve as the nation’s conscience in their proclamation that we as a people are violating the will of God to be the Good Samaritan to those whose bodies litter the migrant trails.

No More Deaths recently listed the reasons why they stand against the Senate bill, reasons which resonate with my own opposition.

First, the bill’s “pathway to citizenship” is troublesome. The obstacles the undocumented must navigate -- expanded criminal grounds for removal and requirements that immigrants earn at least 125 percent of the federal poverty level, not be unemployed for two consecutive months, provide proof of payment on all back taxes, pay exorbitant fees and learn English -- means that more than half of the 11 million undocumented immigrants will never qualify.

Second, the last-minute inclusion of the “border surge” to the bill means more deaths. Since 1994, when Operation Gatekeeper went into effect, more than 6,000 individuals made in the image of God died attempting to migrate to the U.S.

Considering the bill excludes the almost 2 million individuals deported during the Obama administration -- many with homes, families and lives lived in the U.S. -- we can expect many will attempt another crossing to reclaim lost lives regardless of the consequences. The “border surge” provision will guarantee that those crossing in the future will face extreme hardship, leading to thousands more unnecessary deaths.

Third, the border-enforcement provisions are an unnecessary waste of taxpayers’ funds. The Senate bill nearly doubles the size of the U.S. Border Patrol to 38,000 agents at a cost of $30 billion -- not including the $18 billion already spent on border and immigration enforcement annually. Even former Border Patrol officials and current union representatives argue that these provisions are unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Fourth, the bill undermines the civil liberties of Americans. The militarization of the border and over 100 interior Border Patrol checkpoints 25 to 75 miles away from the international border creates a consistent need for Americans to prove their citizenship when many go to work, shop or school.

The bill provides $3.6 billion to expand the use of unarmed Predator B drones, high-resolution camera towers (which have yet to work due to high winds) and other surveillance technologies targeting American communities and eroding everyone’s civil liberties.

A study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute reveals that issues related to reproductive health received unprecedented attention at the state level in 2011.

Legislators in all 50 states introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 in 2010. By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009. By 2012, an additional 43 provisions were enacted in 19 states.

The present strategy is to incrementally narrow abortion laws in states where Republicans control the legislature until a sympathetic Supreme Court is in place to overturn Roe v Wade.

For example, 26 states require a waiting period for a woman seeking an abortion, 35 require mandatory counseling, and three states established stringent regulations that only affects abortion providers but not other providers of outpatient surgical and medical care.

Three states require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges but not other providers of outpatient surgical and medical care. Eight states mandate invasive ultrasound prior to having an abortion.

Attempts have been made in several states to either declare that life begins at conception or grant human rights to embryos as a pathway to legally overturn abortion.

By 2012, 10 states banned abortion at or beyond 20 weeks’ gestation. The most restrictive ban, and strongest challenge to Roe v Wade, was passed in Arkansas. There, no abortion can be performed past 12 weeks when the fetal heartbeat can be detected with an abdominal ultrasound.

By May 21, a federal appellate panel struck down an Arizona abortion ban, finding it unconstitutional “under a long line of invariant Supreme Court precedents” that guarantee a woman’s right to end a pregnancy any time before a fetus is deemed viable outside her womb -- generally at 24 weeks.

Within 24 hours, House Republicans proposed federal legislation that would ban all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. This is not the first time Congress has tried to pass such legislation. In 2011, the House attempted to allow hospitals receiving federal funds from refusing to perform emergency abortions even when the life of the mother was at stake.

Regardless of differing views on abortion, the political system seems to be moving toward a political stance that the reproductive organs of women must be regulated by the government (if not state, then federal), whose majority of legislators are comprised of men.

Numerous studies show that the best way to prevent abortions and unintended pregnancies is sex education and the availability of birth control. Yet, those most opposed to abortion are paradoxically also usually opposed to the availability of contraceptives and sex education.

Title X, the main federal family planning program created in 1970 with the support of then-Republican president Richard Nixon and Congressman George Bush Sr., does not pay for abortions. A 2009 Congressional Research Service report credited Title X with preventing nearly a million annual unintended pregnancies. Experts estimate that Title X helps prevent about 400,000 abortions a year.

Additionally, the majority of Title X’s funds provide about five million women, especially poor women, with lifesaving cervical and breast-cancer screening, HIV and STD testing, adolescent abstinence counseling and infertility counseling.

Some of its funds cover birth control. About a quarter of Title X’s $300 million budget went to Planned Parenthood, which serviced about a third of Title X’s patients in 2011. The poor women of San Carlos, an impoverished town in southern Texas, for example, have relied on Planned Parenthood to obtain breast-cancer screenings, free birth-control pills and pap smears for cervical cancer.

Maria Romero, a housecleaner with four children, is one of those women. Before the clinic closed in the fall of 2011, a lump was discovered in her breast. The San Carlos clinic closed, along with over a dozen others throughout the state, because financing for women’s health was slashed by about two-thirds by the state’s Republican controlled legislature. Some 400,000 women across Texas were left without services.

The next-closest clinic to Ms. Romero is 16 miles away in Edinburg. She has no means by which to get there, and even if she did, the wait time for an appointment is four weeks. To make matters worse, she cannot afford the $20 for a monthly supply of birth-control tablets, which before she obtained for free.

None of these clinics performed abortions, but supporters of the cutbacks were mainly motivated by their opposition to abortion. Gov. Rick Perry rejected receipt of $35 million in federal funds that would have financed women health programs in order to ensure that Planned Parenthood received none of those funds. Other states are following Texas’ lead in one way or another.

Such tactics are not limited to the state level. Since 2011 the Republican controlled House of Representatives has attempted to pass legislation that would have eliminated all funding for Title X, mainly because of its connection to Planned Parenthood.

The illogical attack on women's health continues under an anti-abortion guise that stereotypes Planned Parenthood and garners votes. As predominately good Christian men continue to play politics, women -- especially poor women -- continue to be denied basic health options, which in turn causes more unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

]]>Poor women are collateral damage in a war that anti-abortion activists launched against Planned Parenthood.

By Miguel De La Torre

A study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute reveals that issues related to reproductive health received unprecedented attention at the state level in 2011.

Legislators in all 50 states introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 in 2010. By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009. By 2012, an additional 43 provisions were enacted in 19 states.

The present strategy is to incrementally narrow abortion laws in states where Republicans control the legislature until a sympathetic Supreme Court is in place to overturn Roe v Wade.

For example, 26 states require a waiting period for a woman seeking an abortion, 35 require mandatory counseling, and three states established stringent regulations that only affects abortion providers but not other providers of outpatient surgical and medical care.

Three states require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges but not other providers of outpatient surgical and medical care. Eight states mandate invasive ultrasound prior to having an abortion.

Attempts have been made in several states to either declare that life begins at conception or grant human rights to embryos as a pathway to legally overturn abortion.

By 2012, 10 states banned abortion at or beyond 20 weeks’ gestation. The most restrictive ban, and strongest challenge to Roe v Wade, was passed in Arkansas. There, no abortion can be performed past 12 weeks when the fetal heartbeat can be detected with an abdominal ultrasound.

By May 21, a federal appellate panel struck down an Arizona abortion ban, finding it unconstitutional “under a long line of invariant Supreme Court precedents” that guarantee a woman’s right to end a pregnancy any time before a fetus is deemed viable outside her womb -- generally at 24 weeks.

Within 24 hours, House Republicans proposed federal legislation that would ban all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. This is not the first time Congress has tried to pass such legislation. In 2011, the House attempted to allow hospitals receiving federal funds from refusing to perform emergency abortions even when the life of the mother was at stake.

Regardless of differing views on abortion, the political system seems to be moving toward a political stance that the reproductive organs of women must be regulated by the government (if not state, then federal), whose majority of legislators are comprised of men.

Numerous studies show that the best way to prevent abortions and unintended pregnancies is sex education and the availability of birth control. Yet, those most opposed to abortion are paradoxically also usually opposed to the availability of contraceptives and sex education.

Title X, the main federal family planning program created in 1970 with the support of then-Republican president Richard Nixon and Congressman George Bush Sr., does not pay for abortions. A 2009 Congressional Research Service report credited Title X with preventing nearly a million annual unintended pregnancies. Experts estimate that Title X helps prevent about 400,000 abortions a year.

Additionally, the majority of Title X’s funds provide about five million women, especially poor women, with lifesaving cervical and breast-cancer screening, HIV and STD testing, adolescent abstinence counseling and infertility counseling.

Some of its funds cover birth control. About a quarter of Title X’s $300 million budget went to Planned Parenthood, which serviced about a third of Title X’s patients in 2011. The poor women of San Carlos, an impoverished town in southern Texas, for example, have relied on Planned Parenthood to obtain breast-cancer screenings, free birth-control pills and pap smears for cervical cancer.

Maria Romero, a housecleaner with four children, is one of those women. Before the clinic closed in the fall of 2011, a lump was discovered in her breast. The San Carlos clinic closed, along with over a dozen others throughout the state, because financing for women’s health was slashed by about two-thirds by the state’s Republican controlled legislature. Some 400,000 women across Texas were left without services.

The next-closest clinic to Ms. Romero is 16 miles away in Edinburg. She has no means by which to get there, and even if she did, the wait time for an appointment is four weeks. To make matters worse, she cannot afford the $20 for a monthly supply of birth-control tablets, which before she obtained for free.

None of these clinics performed abortions, but supporters of the cutbacks were mainly motivated by their opposition to abortion. Gov. Rick Perry rejected receipt of $35 million in federal funds that would have financed women health programs in order to ensure that Planned Parenthood received none of those funds. Other states are following Texas’ lead in one way or another.

Such tactics are not limited to the state level. Since 2011 the Republican controlled House of Representatives has attempted to pass legislation that would have eliminated all funding for Title X, mainly because of its connection to Planned Parenthood.

The illogical attack on women's health continues under an anti-abortion guise that stereotypes Planned Parenthood and garners votes. As predominately good Christian men continue to play politics, women -- especially poor women -- continue to be denied basic health options, which in turn causes more unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

“¡Dios no os de paz y si gloria!” I begin my charge to the class of 2013 by quoting one of my intellectual mentors, the great early 20th century philosopher, Miguel de Unamuno. For those of you who have not yet mastered the celestial language of the angels, allow me to translate his words: “May God deny you peace so that God can give you glory!”

Usually at these events, someone is supposed to provide lofty platitudes about how if your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, then you can achieve it. The rhetorical speech of how you can change the world is what is expected. The charge to the one giving the charge all too often is to ensure that you leave charged-up and full of hope.

Unfortunately, those who know me best know that I believe the consequences of neoliberalism’s successes provide us with a hopeless future where the vast majority of humanity will continue to sink into deeper stomach-wrenching disenfranchisement. So you shouldn’t be surprised that I begin my charge wishing that God denies you peace.

While the future seems hopeless for the wretched of the earth, middle-class privilege provides a path that leads some to a life of peace, a wide and easy road to traverse. Anyone can graduate and pursue a life of peace. It’s easy and alluring -- a life of tranquility, relaxation and even boredom now and then.

The world is full of mediocrity and complacency, with too many Peters following the wrong principle so as to avoid becoming involved. I say, however, may God deny you peace, for the struggle for justice is tedious, complex, difficult and stressful.

I will argue that peace is for the intellectually and spiritually lazy, or even cowardly, who dream of earthly comforts, who fear taking risks, who dare not seize a liberative stand least it offends, who are more concerned with popularity rather than ushering in justice and who sacrifice the prophetic voice on the altar of political correctness. Peace is for those who seek a lukewarm way of life.

Do not forget why you pursued a theological education in the first place. It was surely not for the riches -- although charlatans at many mega-churches do exist. Remember that many of you endured theological training so as to speak a prophetic word. Do not deceive yourselves my sisters and brothers -- do not believe for a second that the prophetic and the peaceful can reside in the same house. May God deny you that rose-colored peace.

Have you forgotten the prophets? They were thrown into wells, cut in half, ridiculed, slandered, exiled, tortured and murdered. Prophets do not know earthly peace, and it is easier and takes less effort for the rest of us to watch, stand back or just accept what is happening to them, rather than deal with the reality and complexity of injustice.

Trials and tribulations await all who chose to be prophetic, so please don’t be naïve about this calling. It is easy to accept, and takes less effort to fall for the delusion that those in power together with those who are repressed by that same power, will pat you on the back and says “thanks.”

However, in spite of these occupational hazards, I implore you, do not graduate today in order to seek to live a life in peace, thinking profound and abstract thoughts which are void of praxis. Don’t just think -- do. Don’t just contemplate -- coordinate. Don’t just meditate -- agitate! Don’t simply attempt to signify liberation, but also become the instrument by which liberation is achieved.

Anyone can be hired by an institution to run what others have built. Anyone can keep the status quo. Anyone can pass by a sick, hungry and thirsty person, thinking that “someone else” will tackle the system that creates marginalization. But I dare you to deny yourself comfort and instead build your own house with a foundation that is rooted in the everyday experience of the oppressed.

Yes, I’m aware that the consequences of neoliberalism will force many of you to seek employment at institutions that are already established through protectionist ways with structural rot. But do not let this be an excuse to remain silent. Do not sell your soul for a paycheck.

In whatever post you find yourself, fight the good fight so that the captives yearning for salvation may find their liberation. Do not live to work, but work to live a life that shouts the Good News of liberation from the mountaintop.

Don’t just dream of justice -- do the work. Use all you have learned to bring forth the messianic reign of the Divine -- even if you fail in the process. To fight for justice so as to become popular, to struggle for liberation because you hope for success, to satisfy the dispossessed so as to gain an extra ruby in your heavenly crown, is the same as laying your hand upon the plow and looking back. Don’t bother.

We fight for liberation because the poor have no other option. To stand in solidarity with today’s crucified people, in the hopelessness of Holy Saturday, means that we, too, have no other option but to persevere in the struggle.

The charge I am giving you is a life with little rest and even less peace. In fact, I dare you to attempt the absurdity of this charge, for as Unamuno also reminds us, “Only the one who attempts the absurd is capable of achieving the impossible.”

So let us celebrate today the commencement of the impossible. Let us dare to deny ourselves peace so that we can get to the difficult, complex, hopeless and even absurd work that opts for the stony road instead of the garden path.

And here is the paradoxical truth: in order to achieve the peace that surpasses all understanding, we must first crucify our earthly, comfortable, selfish, complacent and individualistic understanding of what peace is.

In all that you say, and in all that you do from this day forth, let justice roll down like living waters and righteousness flow like an everlasting stream. And let the people say: Ashé.

]]>A charge delivered June 5 to the 2013 graduating class at Iliff School of Theology.

By Miguel De La Torre

“¡Dios no os de paz y si gloria!” I begin my charge to the class of 2013 by quoting one of my intellectual mentors, the great early 20th century philosopher, Miguel de Unamuno. For those of you who have not yet mastered the celestial language of the angels, allow me to translate his words: “May God deny you peace so that God can give you glory!”

Usually at these events, someone is supposed to provide lofty platitudes about how if your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, then you can achieve it. The rhetorical speech of how you can change the world is what is expected. The charge to the one giving the charge all too often is to ensure that you leave charged-up and full of hope.

Unfortunately, those who know me best know that I believe the consequences of neoliberalism’s successes provide us with a hopeless future where the vast majority of humanity will continue to sink into deeper stomach-wrenching disenfranchisement. So you shouldn’t be surprised that I begin my charge wishing that God denies you peace.

While the future seems hopeless for the wretched of the earth, middle-class privilege provides a path that leads some to a life of peace, a wide and easy road to traverse. Anyone can graduate and pursue a life of peace. It’s easy and alluring -- a life of tranquility, relaxation and even boredom now and then.

The world is full of mediocrity and complacency, with too many Peters following the wrong principle so as to avoid becoming involved. I say, however, may God deny you peace, for the struggle for justice is tedious, complex, difficult and stressful.

I will argue that peace is for the intellectually and spiritually lazy, or even cowardly, who dream of earthly comforts, who fear taking risks, who dare not seize a liberative stand least it offends, who are more concerned with popularity rather than ushering in justice and who sacrifice the prophetic voice on the altar of political correctness. Peace is for those who seek a lukewarm way of life.

Do not forget why you pursued a theological education in the first place. It was surely not for the riches -- although charlatans at many mega-churches do exist. Remember that many of you endured theological training so as to speak a prophetic word. Do not deceive yourselves my sisters and brothers -- do not believe for a second that the prophetic and the peaceful can reside in the same house. May God deny you that rose-colored peace.

Have you forgotten the prophets? They were thrown into wells, cut in half, ridiculed, slandered, exiled, tortured and murdered. Prophets do not know earthly peace, and it is easier and takes less effort for the rest of us to watch, stand back or just accept what is happening to them, rather than deal with the reality and complexity of injustice.

Trials and tribulations await all who chose to be prophetic, so please don’t be naïve about this calling. It is easy to accept, and takes less effort to fall for the delusion that those in power together with those who are repressed by that same power, will pat you on the back and says “thanks.”

However, in spite of these occupational hazards, I implore you, do not graduate today in order to seek to live a life in peace, thinking profound and abstract thoughts which are void of praxis. Don’t just think -- do. Don’t just contemplate -- coordinate. Don’t just meditate -- agitate! Don’t simply attempt to signify liberation, but also become the instrument by which liberation is achieved.

Anyone can be hired by an institution to run what others have built. Anyone can keep the status quo. Anyone can pass by a sick, hungry and thirsty person, thinking that “someone else” will tackle the system that creates marginalization. But I dare you to deny yourself comfort and instead build your own house with a foundation that is rooted in the everyday experience of the oppressed.

Yes, I’m aware that the consequences of neoliberalism will force many of you to seek employment at institutions that are already established through protectionist ways with structural rot. But do not let this be an excuse to remain silent. Do not sell your soul for a paycheck.

In whatever post you find yourself, fight the good fight so that the captives yearning for salvation may find their liberation. Do not live to work, but work to live a life that shouts the Good News of liberation from the mountaintop.

Don’t just dream of justice -- do the work. Use all you have learned to bring forth the messianic reign of the Divine -- even if you fail in the process. To fight for justice so as to become popular, to struggle for liberation because you hope for success, to satisfy the dispossessed so as to gain an extra ruby in your heavenly crown, is the same as laying your hand upon the plow and looking back. Don’t bother.

We fight for liberation because the poor have no other option. To stand in solidarity with today’s crucified people, in the hopelessness of Holy Saturday, means that we, too, have no other option but to persevere in the struggle.

The charge I am giving you is a life with little rest and even less peace. In fact, I dare you to attempt the absurdity of this charge, for as Unamuno also reminds us, “Only the one who attempts the absurd is capable of achieving the impossible.”

So let us celebrate today the commencement of the impossible. Let us dare to deny ourselves peace so that we can get to the difficult, complex, hopeless and even absurd work that opts for the stony road instead of the garden path.

And here is the paradoxical truth: in order to achieve the peace that surpasses all understanding, we must first crucify our earthly, comfortable, selfish, complacent and individualistic understanding of what peace is.

In all that you say, and in all that you do from this day forth, let justice roll down like living waters and righteousness flow like an everlasting stream. And let the people say: Ashé.

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesFri, 07 Jun 2013 15:10:19 -0400Shaming women into silencehttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8551-shaming-women-into-silence
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8551-shaming-women-into-silenceThe early church provided equality to women for church leadership, only to have -- within a short time -- the gospel message distorted to justify women’s subordination to men.

By Miguel De La Torre

When women choose to break out of the restricted social space designated for them, men typically dismiss their contributions by questioning their reputations. When “uppity” women refuse to stay in their place, men attempt to shame them into silence.

The shaming of women into silence is as old as the biblical text. For example, what was Mary of Magdala’s profession prior to following Jesus? Chances are you said she was a prostitute. Yet nowhere in the Bible does it say she was a prostitute, but this is the commonly held belief.

All three synoptic gospels (Matt. 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 24:10) mention Mary of Magdala first among Jesus’ female disciples. Her role, along with other women, must have been important enough to be included as equal to the 12 male apostles (Luke 8:1-3).

Contrary to tradition, which credits Peter as being the first witness of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:4-6), Mary of Magdala was the first person to whom the risen Lord appeared and the first person to proclaim the good news of the resurrection (Mark 16:9-10).

No doubt, the biblical text and the early writings of the first church testify to the leadership position she held. Nonetheless, as the early Christian church reverted to patriarchal structures, the need arose to discredit Mary of Magdala in order to disqualify her position of authority within the church.

Hence, church tradition constructed by men protecting male privilege named her a prostitute. She became the unnamed “sinful woman” of Luke 7:38 who washed Jesus’ feet with her hair (identified as Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha in John 12:3).

Mary of Magdala is not the only woman discredited to protect a patriarchal church. John 4 tells the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. This woman has also been traditionally labeled a prostitute, because she had five husbands and was not married to the man she was with at that time.

It was not her who left these men, however, because she did not have the legal right. Instead they left her. In a patriarchal society, she was in dire need of a man to provide for her basic survival needs.

Although her situation was the result of the actions of these men, and nowhere does the text state that she was a prostitute, we have been historically taught to characterize her as a harlot.

Could it be because this is the first person to whom Jesus claimed his messiahship, leading her to become the first city-wide evangelist? Hence, she too was discredited, lest other women in the church use her as a model in claiming their spiritual calling to lead.

After all, if the woman at the well or Mary of Magdala are sluts and whores (interesting that men are never given these titles), how could they serve as paragons to emulate or have anything virtuous to contribute to the conversation?

Ironically, the early church didn’t think being a woman was an obstacle to serving the Lord. According to Peter, one of the signs of the believing church was when “your sons and daughters prophesy” (Acts 2:17). Recognizing that the word “prophesy” has little to do with predicting future events, to prophesy is to proclaim God’s words to God’s people, what we today call preaching.

The pouring out of God’s Spirit is marked by both men and women preaching God’s word. Women throughout the New Testament occupied leadership positions. Some began churches, as did Lydia of Philippi (Acts 16:14-15). Others were teachers of men, like Priscilla, one of Apollos’ instructors (Acts 18:24-28). Several were preachers, such as the four daughters of Phillip (Acts 21:8-9). Various were church elders -- for example, the elect lady in 2 John 1-5.

Paul sends his greetings and encouragement to women who served as deacons (Phoebe, Romans 16:1), as apostles (Junia, Romans 16:7) and as pastors (Priscilla along with her husband, Aquila, in either Ephesus or Rome [Romans 16:3-5], Chloe in either Corinth or Ephesus [1 Cor. 1:11], Nympha in Laodicea [Col. 4:15] and Apphia in Colossae [Philemon 1-2]).

By the third and fourth century of the Christian church, opponents of women clergy succeeded in imposing the prevalent sexism of the secular culture upon the church’s structures, thus bringing to an end the mark of the pouring out of the Spirit, the preaching of their “sons and daughters.”

The early church provided equality to women for church leadership, only to have, within a short time, the gospel message distorted to justify women’s subordination to men and their social structures.

After the Roman Emperor Constantine’s acceptance of Christianity as a state religion, there was a shift in worship practices from private house churches -- the domain of women -- to public basilicas, the domain of men. As the church moved out of the private sphere, new converts refused to accept women leadership in public life.

Theologians like Augustine began to proclaim women priests as a heresy. By 360, during the Council of Laodicea, women were denied ordination -- implying that before this time women were indeed ordained.

As Christianity developed, women were silenced. And when they refused to stay in their place, they were shamed into submission -- a pattern that, unfortunately, is too familiar today.

]]>The early church provided equality to women for church leadership, only to have -- within a short time -- the gospel message distorted to justify women’s subordination to men.

By Miguel De La Torre

When women choose to break out of the restricted social space designated for them, men typically dismiss their contributions by questioning their reputations. When “uppity” women refuse to stay in their place, men attempt to shame them into silence.

The shaming of women into silence is as old as the biblical text. For example, what was Mary of Magdala’s profession prior to following Jesus? Chances are you said she was a prostitute. Yet nowhere in the Bible does it say she was a prostitute, but this is the commonly held belief.

All three synoptic gospels (Matt. 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 24:10) mention Mary of Magdala first among Jesus’ female disciples. Her role, along with other women, must have been important enough to be included as equal to the 12 male apostles (Luke 8:1-3).

Contrary to tradition, which credits Peter as being the first witness of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:4-6), Mary of Magdala was the first person to whom the risen Lord appeared and the first person to proclaim the good news of the resurrection (Mark 16:9-10).

No doubt, the biblical text and the early writings of the first church testify to the leadership position she held. Nonetheless, as the early Christian church reverted to patriarchal structures, the need arose to discredit Mary of Magdala in order to disqualify her position of authority within the church.

Hence, church tradition constructed by men protecting male privilege named her a prostitute. She became the unnamed “sinful woman” of Luke 7:38 who washed Jesus’ feet with her hair (identified as Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha in John 12:3).

Mary of Magdala is not the only woman discredited to protect a patriarchal church. John 4 tells the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. This woman has also been traditionally labeled a prostitute, because she had five husbands and was not married to the man she was with at that time.

It was not her who left these men, however, because she did not have the legal right. Instead they left her. In a patriarchal society, she was in dire need of a man to provide for her basic survival needs.

Although her situation was the result of the actions of these men, and nowhere does the text state that she was a prostitute, we have been historically taught to characterize her as a harlot.

Could it be because this is the first person to whom Jesus claimed his messiahship, leading her to become the first city-wide evangelist? Hence, she too was discredited, lest other women in the church use her as a model in claiming their spiritual calling to lead.

After all, if the woman at the well or Mary of Magdala are sluts and whores (interesting that men are never given these titles), how could they serve as paragons to emulate or have anything virtuous to contribute to the conversation?

Ironically, the early church didn’t think being a woman was an obstacle to serving the Lord. According to Peter, one of the signs of the believing church was when “your sons and daughters prophesy” (Acts 2:17). Recognizing that the word “prophesy” has little to do with predicting future events, to prophesy is to proclaim God’s words to God’s people, what we today call preaching.

The pouring out of God’s Spirit is marked by both men and women preaching God’s word. Women throughout the New Testament occupied leadership positions. Some began churches, as did Lydia of Philippi (Acts 16:14-15). Others were teachers of men, like Priscilla, one of Apollos’ instructors (Acts 18:24-28). Several were preachers, such as the four daughters of Phillip (Acts 21:8-9). Various were church elders -- for example, the elect lady in 2 John 1-5.

Paul sends his greetings and encouragement to women who served as deacons (Phoebe, Romans 16:1), as apostles (Junia, Romans 16:7) and as pastors (Priscilla along with her husband, Aquila, in either Ephesus or Rome [Romans 16:3-5], Chloe in either Corinth or Ephesus [1 Cor. 1:11], Nympha in Laodicea [Col. 4:15] and Apphia in Colossae [Philemon 1-2]).

By the third and fourth century of the Christian church, opponents of women clergy succeeded in imposing the prevalent sexism of the secular culture upon the church’s structures, thus bringing to an end the mark of the pouring out of the Spirit, the preaching of their “sons and daughters.”

The early church provided equality to women for church leadership, only to have, within a short time, the gospel message distorted to justify women’s subordination to men and their social structures.

After the Roman Emperor Constantine’s acceptance of Christianity as a state religion, there was a shift in worship practices from private house churches -- the domain of women -- to public basilicas, the domain of men. As the church moved out of the private sphere, new converts refused to accept women leadership in public life.

Theologians like Augustine began to proclaim women priests as a heresy. By 360, during the Council of Laodicea, women were denied ordination -- implying that before this time women were indeed ordained.

As Christianity developed, women were silenced. And when they refused to stay in their place, they were shamed into submission -- a pattern that, unfortunately, is too familiar today.

]]>Miguel De La TorreCommentariesMon, 03 Jun 2013 14:44:50 -0400Evading their fair sharehttp://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8516-evading-their-fair-share
http://baptistnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/8516-evading-their-fair-shareHow some corporations and the rich use loop holes and other tricks to get out of their tax obligation to the nation.

By Miguel De La Torre

Corporations eliminate paying portions of their taxes by registering their companies in tax havens like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands while keeping their working headquarters in the United States.

One tax haven island, the British Virgin Islands, is home to 30,000 people and 457,000 companies. The Cayman Islands population of 53,000 has 93,000 companies. One Cayman Island building, the Ugland House, is the business address for more than 19,000 businesses, leading then 2008 presidential candidate Barak Obama to exclaim, “either this is the largest building in the world or the largest tax scam in the world.”

According to an academic study conducted by U.S. Public Interest Research Group, tax haven abuses cost the federal government $150 billion a year in tax revenues, with multinational corporations representing $90 billion and private individuals $60 billion. One of those individual taxpayers who took advantage of these tax havens was Mitt Romney, the 2012 candidate for the presidency of the United States, whose tax returns revealed dozens of offshore holdings in places like Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands.

Because of these tax havens, the average taxpayer filing out a 1040 form must pay an additional $1,026 in federal taxes to make up the lost revenue. If we restrict the $90 billion loss due to multinational corporate tax havens to small businesses, then we can expect each small business to pay an extra $3,067 in taxes.

The three major corporate abusers of using tax havens are: 1) Pfizer, the world’s largest drug company, which due to its 172 subsidies in tax havens has reported no taxable income over five years, even though it has $73 billion parked in an offshore account; 2) Microsoft, who avoided paying $4.5 billion in federal income tax over three years, even though it has $60.8 billion parked offshore on which it would have had to pay $19.4 billion in U.S. taxes; and 3) Citigroup, beneficiary of the 2008 taxpayer funded bailout, who maintains 20 subsidies in tax havens with $42.6 billion sitting offshore on which it would have owed $11.5 billion in U.S. taxes.

In addition to taking advantage of tax havens, Romney was able to pay low taxes on millions of dollars in income by an accounting technique known as carried interest. This legal principle allowed private equity fund managers to treat most of the fees they earn for managing equity funds (management fees usually categorized as ordinary income) as though it was capital gain. As capital gain, even the tax liability can at times be deferred for years. This allowed Romney’s company, Bain Capital, to convert $1.05 billion in management fees from ordinary income into capital gain in 2009. Some legal scholars question the legality employed by Romney and company believing that if challenged, the IRS could win; thus leading a few private equity firms from not taking advantage of this accounting technique.

Some corporations are implementing a new tax strategy designed to aggressively reduce, if not eliminate, federal taxes. Diverse businesses like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a private prison, or Penn National Gaming, which operates casinos, are declaring they are really not an ordinary corporation, but instead a special trust that typically is exempted from federal taxes. Although the trust structure, specifically a real estate investment trust (REIT) used for years, is not new. Companies have filed recently for -- and been approved by -- the IRS to reclassify as a trust. For example, CCA is expected to save $70 million of federal taxes in 2013.

As of this writing, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (S1346, HR 2669) has yet to pass Congress. The bill, if passed would close many of the abuses of tax havens resulting in an increase in annual tax revenue of about $100 billion. Furthermore, it would eliminate the incentive of moving jobs and profits offshore. The bill has languished in Congress since 2007. A cause for the House’s refusal to move on this Act might probably have to do with the millions of dollars leaders of private equity firms have spent lobbying to protect their privileged tax status.

During the 2012 presidential election it could be argued that because candidate Obama made raising taxes on the richest Americans a priority, his successful re-election amounted to a mandate by the majority of the voters. And yet, President Obama’s original plan of raising marginal tax rates on families with income over $250,000 will have little if no impact on families making up to $300,000, as well as hundreds of thousands of families with even greater incomes due to the complexity of a tax code littered with tax shelters and loopholes.

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, only about 32 percent of families with income between $250,000 to $350,000 will see a tax increase, while 77 percent with income between $300,000 and $350,000 will see a rise. Obama may have pledged to raise taxes on the top 2 percent, but the final deal struck in the waning hours of the 112th Congress only raised taxes on the top .7 percent, with the very rich still paying vastly lower rates than at any point from the 1940s through the 1970s.

]]>How some corporations and the rich use loop holes and other tricks to get out of their tax obligation to the nation.

By Miguel De La Torre

Corporations eliminate paying portions of their taxes by registering their companies in tax havens like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands while keeping their working headquarters in the United States.

One tax haven island, the British Virgin Islands, is home to 30,000 people and 457,000 companies. The Cayman Islands population of 53,000 has 93,000 companies. One Cayman Island building, the Ugland House, is the business address for more than 19,000 businesses, leading then 2008 presidential candidate Barak Obama to exclaim, “either this is the largest building in the world or the largest tax scam in the world.”

According to an academic study conducted by U.S. Public Interest Research Group, tax haven abuses cost the federal government $150 billion a year in tax revenues, with multinational corporations representing $90 billion and private individuals $60 billion. One of those individual taxpayers who took advantage of these tax havens was Mitt Romney, the 2012 candidate for the presidency of the United States, whose tax returns revealed dozens of offshore holdings in places like Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands.

Because of these tax havens, the average taxpayer filing out a 1040 form must pay an additional $1,026 in federal taxes to make up the lost revenue. If we restrict the $90 billion loss due to multinational corporate tax havens to small businesses, then we can expect each small business to pay an extra $3,067 in taxes.

The three major corporate abusers of using tax havens are: 1) Pfizer, the world’s largest drug company, which due to its 172 subsidies in tax havens has reported no taxable income over five years, even though it has $73 billion parked in an offshore account; 2) Microsoft, who avoided paying $4.5 billion in federal income tax over three years, even though it has $60.8 billion parked offshore on which it would have had to pay $19.4 billion in U.S. taxes; and 3) Citigroup, beneficiary of the 2008 taxpayer funded bailout, who maintains 20 subsidies in tax havens with $42.6 billion sitting offshore on which it would have owed $11.5 billion in U.S. taxes.

In addition to taking advantage of tax havens, Romney was able to pay low taxes on millions of dollars in income by an accounting technique known as carried interest. This legal principle allowed private equity fund managers to treat most of the fees they earn for managing equity funds (management fees usually categorized as ordinary income) as though it was capital gain. As capital gain, even the tax liability can at times be deferred for years. This allowed Romney’s company, Bain Capital, to convert $1.05 billion in management fees from ordinary income into capital gain in 2009. Some legal scholars question the legality employed by Romney and company believing that if challenged, the IRS could win; thus leading a few private equity firms from not taking advantage of this accounting technique.

Some corporations are implementing a new tax strategy designed to aggressively reduce, if not eliminate, federal taxes. Diverse businesses like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a private prison, or Penn National Gaming, which operates casinos, are declaring they are really not an ordinary corporation, but instead a special trust that typically is exempted from federal taxes. Although the trust structure, specifically a real estate investment trust (REIT) used for years, is not new. Companies have filed recently for -- and been approved by -- the IRS to reclassify as a trust. For example, CCA is expected to save $70 million of federal taxes in 2013.

As of this writing, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (S1346, HR 2669) has yet to pass Congress. The bill, if passed would close many of the abuses of tax havens resulting in an increase in annual tax revenue of about $100 billion. Furthermore, it would eliminate the incentive of moving jobs and profits offshore. The bill has languished in Congress since 2007. A cause for the House’s refusal to move on this Act might probably have to do with the millions of dollars leaders of private equity firms have spent lobbying to protect their privileged tax status.

During the 2012 presidential election it could be argued that because candidate Obama made raising taxes on the richest Americans a priority, his successful re-election amounted to a mandate by the majority of the voters. And yet, President Obama’s original plan of raising marginal tax rates on families with income over $250,000 will have little if no impact on families making up to $300,000, as well as hundreds of thousands of families with even greater incomes due to the complexity of a tax code littered with tax shelters and loopholes.

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, only about 32 percent of families with income between $250,000 to $350,000 will see a tax increase, while 77 percent with income between $300,000 and $350,000 will see a rise. Obama may have pledged to raise taxes on the top 2 percent, but the final deal struck in the waning hours of the 112th Congress only raised taxes on the top .7 percent, with the very rich still paying vastly lower rates than at any point from the 1940s through the 1970s.